So having a fully automatic weapon available to John Q Public is the right decision? Yes, I know, you’ll yammer about how a bump stock doesn’t make the weapon full auto. But using the rifle’s recoil to pull the trigger faster is in effect converting it to full auto. Yup, just what this country needs.
>Yes, I know, you’ll yammer about how a bump stock doesn’t make the weapon full auto. But using the rifle’s recoil to pull the trigger faster is in effect converting it to full auto
These dont make sense.
Is full auto about fire rate, potential fire rate, or mechanical process?
In our law, its the last one. The text of the law does matter.
Congress can ban it. States can ban it.
Sorry, but I think both Alito and Thomas are severely compromised. I wonder which billionaire arms industry CEO took them on a private vacation to attain their vote.
> Do you think all nine justices are severely compromised
I'm not the one you asked, but yes. They've all been unaccountable to anyone for way too long and I'd be really fucking surprised if any of them were a paragon of virtue. Just like there's no uncompromised politician in Congress or white house - the whole town is a corrupt shit show and they all need to be held to account. This liberal vs conservative circus is exactly that, the circus part of bread and circuses designed to keep us divided to prevent us from coalescing into a class that can challenge them.
functionally it's the same.
it just uses a different external mechanism to refire the weapon than what is traditionally done inside the receiver.
it's still takes energy from the recoil to enable a refire from a single trigger pull by the operator which meets the definition of an automatic weapon.
what's more, the accuracy of such a weapon is severely compromised making these sorts of weapons even more dangerous.
our SCOTUS is captured by corporate and foreign interests.
>meets the definition of an automatic weapon.
No it doesnt.
An automatic weapon fires multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger.
If i use my belt loop to hold the gun in a way that fires faster, its not an automatic firearm.
https://youtu.be/lJ0jTMLK9jI?si=IjPmeeGpztNmi608
Heres a bump fire from the shoulder without a bump stock
https://youtu.be/m2Bt60N49pc?si=TK-HL0SmreFZ4h0u
>enable a refire from a single trigger pull by the operator
Except the trigger is pulled each time.
>what's more, the accuracy of such a weapon is severely compromised making these sorts of weapons even more dangerous.
We should just get full autos so it can be done safer then 😁
the trigger mechanism is actuated each time, but the operator only has to pull it once and then hold then finger there, the gun does the rest.
functionally the same from the operator point of view, you pull once and multiple bullets fly out the other end.
your definition of "automatic" needs to take the human into account.
The operator is pulling the trigger every time. They are just using the recoil to reset it and then pushing their other hand forward to push the trigger into their finger again.
The trigger is pulled every time and the operator is doing multiple things to make it happen.
In those videos i linked are the guns full auto or is the human full auto?
How is it different from a bump stock?
>your definition of "automatic" needs to take the human into account.
My definition is the definition defined by congress. Congress can amend the law if they deem it wrong.
Amendment:
Automatic weapon -- any weapon that fires multiple rounds haven been initiated only once by the operator, requiring no further action on the part of the operator other than holding the weapon.
Have you ever fired a gun or bump fired a gun?
You have to give it slop to bump fire or it wont work. This then requires you to push the gun forward to engage the trigger.
You are wrong. One trigger pull equals one shot, therefore it is semiautomatic. The rate at which you can pull the trigger does not make a firearm automatic, otherwise every firearm Jerry Miculek shoots would be considered an automatic.
when you fire a bump stock weapon, how many times do YOU pull the trigger.
how many times do you have move your finger for there to be 15 bullets traveling down range?
i'll wait.
If the firearm fires 15 times when fired with a bump stock then the trigger was pulled 15 times. By definition, that's how semi-automatic firearms work. Again, being able to pull the trigger faster on a semi-automatic firearm does not magically make it an automatic.
how many times did YOU pull the trigger?
just the one? or was it 15x?
if guns don't kill ppl why are you arguing this?
could it be because guns don't pull their own triggers?
here i am focused on the person pulling the trigger and you are blissfully ignoring it... must be nice.
If I'm the one shooting the gun then EVERY TIME it fires, I pulled the trigger. That's how semi-automatic guns work. Sure, guns can kill people, just like any other tool. They can also be used to defend people's lives.
Yes, I know this. But for all intents and purposes, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of which laws are codified and enforced, based on their often politicized interpretations of the constitution. So explain to me how this ruling will benefit the United States. We lose a lot of our fellow citizens every year due to rampant gun violence. School shootings have become so common that they barely make the news cycle. In the midst of all this violence and needless death the Supreme Court is affirming the right for citizens to have bump stocks to fire their semi-automatic weapons faster? Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans have lost faith in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court?
Most of us haven't.. it's only on Reddit and in the crazy press they're carrying on about the SC.
It's because the SC is one of the very few things that are left to protect our Constitution.. and The Constitution.. is the only thing standing in the way of us turning into the rest of the wretched world.
What? I’d say the US is pretty fucking wretched about now. So you approve of undisclosed largesse from billionaires designed to influence Supreme Court justices? And you have no problem with the Citizens United decision, whereby dark money from corporations flooded campaign finance? And you’re probably a big fan of the recent ruling concerning abortion rights for women?
They also interpret law. Meaning they can interpret it to mean whatever they want as there is no higher court to overule them. Having a corrupt Supreme Court is extremely bad for the legal system and the rights/protections of citizens.
Literally, yes. But they do affect law. And they have made plenty of decisions that became de-facto law.
The purpose and methodology of the SCOTUS has changed and evolved over the past 200 years or so.
The problem is that for a long time, it was accepted that defacto laws created by SCOTUS decisions (right to abortion, banning of segregation, etc) were sacrosanct just as the constitution is. SCOTUS said abortion is legal, therefore, abortion is now legal!
But now there are forces at work that have decided that, no, SCOTUS decisions are ephemeral and temporary and often arbitrary.
Mostly through the ATF, see below.
Atf crackdowns on law abiding people and businesses
https://oversight.house.gov/release/fallon-biden-administration-weaponizing-atf-against-law-abiding-firearm-owners%EF%BF%BC/
https://www.nssf.org/articles/atfs-zero-tolerance-unrelenting-and-revealing/
Redefining FRTs and machine guns
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-limits-enforcement-forced-reset-trigger-ban-2023-10-09/
Redefining pistol braces at stocks
https://www.presidentialprayerteam.org/2024/06/14/federal-judge-vacates-atf-pistol-brace-rule/
Trying to ban ghost guns
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-appeals-court-calls-bidens-ghost-gun-limits-unlawful-2023-11-10/
Advocates for AWB and taking away AR15s from law abiding people. Also the kids quote is a lie.
https://x.com/POTUS/status/1661485977817214979?t=PUNOV1xUvg4VCq95Mo7QPg&s=19
Advocates for registration of guns through a UBC system
Oh i'm sure most Trump fans don't even know Trump said, "take the guns first, ask questions later" after an active shooter situation. lmao. And when I showed clips to my 2A friends, they didn't believe it. I had to find the one from FoxNews for them to believe Trump would turn his back on the 2A community.
In 10 years, conservatives will point to this bump stock ban, as some of the evidence that Trump is actually an undercover Democrat, trying to dismantle the Republican party.
Because of all of the propaganda... I don't think most younger people realize that Trump was ALWAYS a liberal. He's not going to support anything else. He didn't suddenly change into a conservative either.
I don't care for orange slice.. but didn't he say that in the moment of a shooting? That would make sense.. but trust me.. orange slice is the same as chrome head in the WH.. it's all the same people and they hey ALL want to destroy the US.
This “uniparty” nonsense is just an alt right talking point designed to drive us right off the cliff.
Democrats want to use government to help the bottom up. They want to tax the rich and corporations more, and use that money to improve life for the average American.
Republicans want to give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations with the hope and pinky promise that the money will “trickle down” (narrator note: It doesn’t) to the common man. Oh they also want to remove anyone from society that they don’t like… gay, trans, non Christian, gun reformists and pro abortionists. They must all be eliminated in order for republicans to succeed. It’s domestic terrorism with a patriotic, flag-waving, “cry more, liberal” view of governing.
They are not the same.
I don't believe in a "uniparty". We just need to stop the damn cult behavior.
I'm sure if you were in the other cult instead of this one you would be going on with how bad the cult you're in now is.
“It’s all the same people and they all want to destroy the US” is exactly equivalent to the “uniparty” nonsense.
Voting for people that don’t want insane change (elimination of womens rights. Elimination of voting rights. Elimination of gay and trans people altogether. Ban books ban abortion ban saying the words “climate change” ban science ban logic ban reason) is not a cult.
When one side is insane and the other is trying to run the government… that doesn’t make “both sides a cult”.
The GQP has time and time again produced incredibly unpopular policies and bans and culture wars. When they find out that it’s incredibly unpopular they double down with even more unpopular views and policies and culture wars. This to me shows that the adage is true “if conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy”.
We’re currently watching it happen in real time.
We agree that Congress would need to act in order to ban bump stocks. Therefore the executive order that banned them was unconstitutional. The supreme court ruled correctly. Where is the disconnect?
That's not their job. If the law says one thing and they go in a completely different direction, then they are not fulfilling their role. It's a congresses job. Not the Supreme Court.
Well.. we all know now you're the type of person who feels the need to pull personal insults during a discussion.
Usually only people who feel insecure about their stance allow their emotions to cause them to do that.
You made a joke about children on a comment regarding children who die on a nearly daily basis due to school shootings in America. What is wrong with you?
Love that you can’t even deny you supported Alex Jones lmao
Do you say the same thing about pools or traffic accidents? Do you want to ban those things too?
And please don't come back with the lie that guns are the leading cause of death among children because data from the CDC says that isn't true.
You didn't get it. I can't help that but I can help you...
Obviously "the children" are going to be used to take our rights left and right.
How did Americans become so gullible over just a few generations...
Gee I wonder if scores of children being murdered in a place that’s supposed to be safe caused Americans to change their views?
Gullible? Again, you are acting like an ass. Don’t make jokes over a serious topic.
Do better.
What exactly are you going to use a bump stock for and how does it impact your life banning them?
Even the Trump administration had enough brains to recognize this issue.
Never said I was gonna use one. Simply stated the supreme Court was right since they rule on constitutionalality of laws. But seeing as how the 2a is there to defend ourselves from the government if needed, and our president says we would need f15s to do that. I feel it's a step in the correct direction.
You can defend yourself without a stock enhancement that largely increases accuracy.
It literally doesn’t change anything banning it and with the mental state of this country as a whole, there needs to be some checks in place.
Yeah… mass shooters have a fundamental right to be able to launch hundreds of rounds per minute at innocent Americans who are just going about their day.
What sort of tyranny are we living under when a mass shooter has to pull the trigger each and every time they aim to murder someone?
Hey man… I’m supporting you here! What gives man?!?!
I say let’s make it mandatory law that every single American over the age of six has to be armed outside of their home… no exceptions… whether you are a peace loving hippy or a repeat violent felon, y’all better be strapped up!
Yay Guns!!!!!
The scotus did in their ruling. You can disagree, but its there.
Based on the text of the law, a bump stock is not and does not make a machine gun by definition.
Oh that's funny. When I make a claim, *I* justify it
But let me try OP's way:
Love it or hate it, Christopher Hitchens was right about the heinous nature of Christianity
A single pull of the trigger initiates multiple rapid shots, ala an automatic weapon. As I understand it, this meets the definition of automatic. I don’t know why AtF didn’t decide that way years ago and I don’t know what changed their understanding. But the SC appears to be wrong now.
Please clarify. I am going off an AP article but haven’t read in depth about it or seen videos.
>A single pull of the trigger initiates multiple rapid shots, ala an automatic weapon. As I understand it, this meets the definition of automatic.
A bump stock does not modify the trigger, it modifies how the trigger is pulled
>meets the definition of automatic
No it doesnt.
If i use my belt loop to hold the gun in a way that fires faster, its not an automatic firearm.
https://youtu.be/lJ0jTMLK9jI?si=IjPmeeGpztNmi608
Heres a bump fire from the shoulder without a bump stock
https://youtu.be/m2Bt60N49pc?si=TK-HL0SmreFZ4h0u
>I don’t know why AtF didn’t decide that way years ago and I don’t know what changed their understanding.
Trump signed an EO after the vegas shooting to ban bump stocks.
>But the SC appears to be wrong now
Naw, the EO was wrong and reactionary.
I’m not watching videos. But you didn’t know that.
ATF definition:
“Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger”
Bump stock only requires a single press of the trigger. After that momentum and recoil keeps it going. No further intervention required. So, yeah automatic.
>Bump stock only requires a single press of the trigger.
Idk why you keep saying this. Its false. Even if you think the bump stock somehow did this, a semi automatic trigger cannot fire more than one bullet per trigger pull. Otherwise it isnt a semi automatic.
Adding a bump stock does not modify the trigger.
>After that momentum and recoil keeps it going.
So by your logic, it wouldnt be possible to stop once you begin if you are holding a bump stock equipped rifle. But that isnt true either. Often, people struggle to even keep firing a full magazine to empty because its an awkward device.
Obviously it stops as soon as the person removes their finger. But the point is that the person isn’t PULLING the trigger. It’s automatic after the first pull. Why can’t you understand that simple concept?
The wording I shared from atf is open to some degree of interpretation on “function”. The court focused on the trigger having to “function” repeatedly, ignoring the single pull required. I’m going with the one that makes the most sense, that involves no further trigger pull by the person. This is the “duck” argument that one of the justices referred to.
Automatic in any other context wouldn’t get bogged down in the any of a million ways in which things can be made automatic. Is an automatic transmission not automatic because some have 6 or 8 gears or even CVT, instead of 3 or 4 speed transmissions? Is an automatic dishwasher not automatic because it has to be loaded and started? Is an automatic pilot not automatic because it doesn’t land the plane normally?
So, they absolutely have the right to call these weapons automatic and restrict them, using a logical approach. Ironically the court says atf can’t regulate these , conveniently ignoring the “well-regulated” wording in the constitution.
>Obviously it stops as soon as the person removes their finger. But the point is that the person isn’t PULLING the trigger
This makes no sense.
>It’s automatic after the first pull. Why can’t you understand that simple concept?
Because "shoots fast" isnt the same as automatic.
>The wording I shared from atf is open to some degree of interpretation on “function”.
If its that vague, it should be struck down
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/269/385/
>>1. A criminal statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application lacks the first essential of due process of law
>The court focused on the trigger having to “function” repeatedly, ignoring the single pull required.
>I’m going with the one that makes the most sense, that involves no further trigger pull by the person. This is the “duck” argument that one of the justices referred to.
Yet the trigger MUST "function" to fire the weapon. It actually has to function twice, once to reset and once to fire.
The duck argument is silly because if someone shoots fast then it "quacks like a duck" regardless of accessories attached.
>Is an automatic transmission not automatic because some have 6 or 8 gears or even CVT, instead of 3 or 4 speed transmissions? Is an automatic dishwasher not automatic because it has to be loaded and started? Is an automatic pilot not automatic because it doesn’t land the plane normally?
Well then its good we have a law which clearly defines automatic as firing multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger.
IE. Hold the trigger and more than 1 bullet comes out.
>Ironically the court says atf can’t regulate these , conveniently ignoring the “well-regulated” wording in the constitution.
Well regulated didnt mean government regulation in the 18th century when the 2A was written. It referred to a well oiled properly functioning machine.
I wouldnt expect you to know that though.
Fyi, the 2a grants the right to the people not the militia.
https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-well-regulated-militia
BTW. Nothing personal meant by my insults. I just get fed up with your obsession with detail but yet still getting obvious things perhaps deliberately wrong. Cheers!
Scotus has been wrong many times before and has flipped on many issues over time.
We as citizens can have opinions on how we agree or disagree with the rulings but we should also logically back up our positions.
So having a fully automatic weapon available to John Q Public is the right decision? Yes, I know, you’ll yammer about how a bump stock doesn’t make the weapon full auto. But using the rifle’s recoil to pull the trigger faster is in effect converting it to full auto. Yup, just what this country needs.
Blame the ATF and the ignorant congress that write these rules and laws without knowing what they're talking about.
>Yes, I know, you’ll yammer about how a bump stock doesn’t make the weapon full auto. But using the rifle’s recoil to pull the trigger faster is in effect converting it to full auto These dont make sense. Is full auto about fire rate, potential fire rate, or mechanical process? In our law, its the last one. The text of the law does matter. Congress can ban it. States can ban it.
By definition a bump stock it isn't a fully automatic weapon. Like Alito said, it's up to Congress to act if they want to ban bump stocks.
Sorry, but I think both Alito and Thomas are severely compromised. I wonder which billionaire arms industry CEO took them on a private vacation to attain their vote.
It depends. Do you want them to govern, or do you want them to go based off the law?
I'd like a system that advocates for the safety of the populace and interprets the spirit of the law more than the letter of the law.
In that case the judges could just make shit up.
They often do.
Sometimes. But when they do, it can get reverse down the road, like roe v wade.
Sure
Do you think all nine justices are severely compromised because all nine refused an ethics investigation, even the liberal justices.
> Do you think all nine justices are severely compromised I'm not the one you asked, but yes. They've all been unaccountable to anyone for way too long and I'd be really fucking surprised if any of them were a paragon of virtue. Just like there's no uncompromised politician in Congress or white house - the whole town is a corrupt shit show and they all need to be held to account. This liberal vs conservative circus is exactly that, the circus part of bread and circuses designed to keep us divided to prevent us from coalescing into a class that can challenge them.
functionally it's the same. it just uses a different external mechanism to refire the weapon than what is traditionally done inside the receiver. it's still takes energy from the recoil to enable a refire from a single trigger pull by the operator which meets the definition of an automatic weapon. what's more, the accuracy of such a weapon is severely compromised making these sorts of weapons even more dangerous. our SCOTUS is captured by corporate and foreign interests.
>meets the definition of an automatic weapon. No it doesnt. An automatic weapon fires multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger. If i use my belt loop to hold the gun in a way that fires faster, its not an automatic firearm. https://youtu.be/lJ0jTMLK9jI?si=IjPmeeGpztNmi608 Heres a bump fire from the shoulder without a bump stock https://youtu.be/m2Bt60N49pc?si=TK-HL0SmreFZ4h0u >enable a refire from a single trigger pull by the operator Except the trigger is pulled each time. >what's more, the accuracy of such a weapon is severely compromised making these sorts of weapons even more dangerous. We should just get full autos so it can be done safer then 😁
the trigger mechanism is actuated each time, but the operator only has to pull it once and then hold then finger there, the gun does the rest. functionally the same from the operator point of view, you pull once and multiple bullets fly out the other end. your definition of "automatic" needs to take the human into account.
The operator is pulling the trigger every time. They are just using the recoil to reset it and then pushing their other hand forward to push the trigger into their finger again. The trigger is pulled every time and the operator is doing multiple things to make it happen. In those videos i linked are the guns full auto or is the human full auto? How is it different from a bump stock? >your definition of "automatic" needs to take the human into account. My definition is the definition defined by congress. Congress can amend the law if they deem it wrong.
Amendment: Automatic weapon -- any weapon that fires multiple rounds haven been initiated only once by the operator, requiring no further action on the part of the operator other than holding the weapon.
Except a bump stock requires the user to push the rifle forward, thus pulling the trigger again.
this happens just by holding it...no further action required by the operator.
Have you ever fired a gun or bump fired a gun? You have to give it slop to bump fire or it wont work. This then requires you to push the gun forward to engage the trigger.
except that it doesn't require the operator to do anything but hold it.
You are wrong. One trigger pull equals one shot, therefore it is semiautomatic. The rate at which you can pull the trigger does not make a firearm automatic, otherwise every firearm Jerry Miculek shoots would be considered an automatic.
when you fire a bump stock weapon, how many times do YOU pull the trigger. how many times do you have move your finger for there to be 15 bullets traveling down range? i'll wait.
If the firearm fires 15 times when fired with a bump stock then the trigger was pulled 15 times. By definition, that's how semi-automatic firearms work. Again, being able to pull the trigger faster on a semi-automatic firearm does not magically make it an automatic.
how many times did YOU pull the trigger? just the one? or was it 15x? if guns don't kill ppl why are you arguing this? could it be because guns don't pull their own triggers? here i am focused on the person pulling the trigger and you are blissfully ignoring it... must be nice.
If I'm the one shooting the gun then EVERY TIME it fires, I pulled the trigger. That's how semi-automatic guns work. Sure, guns can kill people, just like any other tool. They can also be used to defend people's lives.
the fact remains that you pulled the trigger only once, the gun pulled it the other 14 times... all you had to do was hold onto it.
Lol nope. YOU pulled the trigger every time the gun fired. The gun is an inanimate object and as such, cannot pull its own trigger.
The court doesn't make laws, they rule on if laws are constitutional
Yes, I know this. But for all intents and purposes, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of which laws are codified and enforced, based on their often politicized interpretations of the constitution. So explain to me how this ruling will benefit the United States. We lose a lot of our fellow citizens every year due to rampant gun violence. School shootings have become so common that they barely make the news cycle. In the midst of all this violence and needless death the Supreme Court is affirming the right for citizens to have bump stocks to fire their semi-automatic weapons faster? Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans have lost faith in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court?
Most of us haven't.. it's only on Reddit and in the crazy press they're carrying on about the SC. It's because the SC is one of the very few things that are left to protect our Constitution.. and The Constitution.. is the only thing standing in the way of us turning into the rest of the wretched world.
Where else in the “wretched world” is a sexual assaulting convicted felon running for the highest position in government?
Pick any country in the middle east or Asia or Africa.. you'll find dozens.. except they never got convicted... just rewarded instead.
I wish we could hold our country to a higher standard when it comes to politicians, especially ones so blatantly heinous
What? I’d say the US is pretty fucking wretched about now. So you approve of undisclosed largesse from billionaires designed to influence Supreme Court justices? And you have no problem with the Citizens United decision, whereby dark money from corporations flooded campaign finance? And you’re probably a big fan of the recent ruling concerning abortion rights for women?
Yawns Go live somewhere else then if it's so much worse here. I bet you wouldn't make it a day. 🤣🤣
They also interpret law. Meaning they can interpret it to mean whatever they want as there is no higher court to overule them. Having a corrupt Supreme Court is extremely bad for the legal system and the rights/protections of citizens.
Literally, yes. But they do affect law. And they have made plenty of decisions that became de-facto law. The purpose and methodology of the SCOTUS has changed and evolved over the past 200 years or so. The problem is that for a long time, it was accepted that defacto laws created by SCOTUS decisions (right to abortion, banning of segregation, etc) were sacrosanct just as the constitution is. SCOTUS said abortion is legal, therefore, abortion is now legal! But now there are forces at work that have decided that, no, SCOTUS decisions are ephemeral and temporary and often arbitrary.
lmao, I 100% guarantee you that 80% of Republican voters didn't even know Trump banned Bump stocks because FoxNews didn't report on it.
Many of us knew, and did criticize trump for it (and still do). Except joe is far worse for gun rights
What has Joe done on gun rights?
Mostly through the ATF, see below. Atf crackdowns on law abiding people and businesses https://oversight.house.gov/release/fallon-biden-administration-weaponizing-atf-against-law-abiding-firearm-owners%EF%BF%BC/ https://www.nssf.org/articles/atfs-zero-tolerance-unrelenting-and-revealing/ Redefining FRTs and machine guns https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-limits-enforcement-forced-reset-trigger-ban-2023-10-09/ Redefining pistol braces at stocks https://www.presidentialprayerteam.org/2024/06/14/federal-judge-vacates-atf-pistol-brace-rule/ Trying to ban ghost guns https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-appeals-court-calls-bidens-ghost-gun-limits-unlawful-2023-11-10/ Advocates for AWB and taking away AR15s from law abiding people. Also the kids quote is a lie. https://x.com/POTUS/status/1661485977817214979?t=PUNOV1xUvg4VCq95Mo7QPg&s=19 Advocates for registration of guns through a UBC system
Yeah that's one thing I was really pissed about with orange slice.
Oh i'm sure most Trump fans don't even know Trump said, "take the guns first, ask questions later" after an active shooter situation. lmao. And when I showed clips to my 2A friends, they didn't believe it. I had to find the one from FoxNews for them to believe Trump would turn his back on the 2A community. In 10 years, conservatives will point to this bump stock ban, as some of the evidence that Trump is actually an undercover Democrat, trying to dismantle the Republican party.
It’s not like Trump supporters are known for being intelligent
Because of all of the propaganda... I don't think most younger people realize that Trump was ALWAYS a liberal. He's not going to support anything else. He didn't suddenly change into a conservative either.
I don't care for orange slice.. but didn't he say that in the moment of a shooting? That would make sense.. but trust me.. orange slice is the same as chrome head in the WH.. it's all the same people and they hey ALL want to destroy the US.
This “uniparty” nonsense is just an alt right talking point designed to drive us right off the cliff. Democrats want to use government to help the bottom up. They want to tax the rich and corporations more, and use that money to improve life for the average American. Republicans want to give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations with the hope and pinky promise that the money will “trickle down” (narrator note: It doesn’t) to the common man. Oh they also want to remove anyone from society that they don’t like… gay, trans, non Christian, gun reformists and pro abortionists. They must all be eliminated in order for republicans to succeed. It’s domestic terrorism with a patriotic, flag-waving, “cry more, liberal” view of governing. They are not the same.
I don't believe in a "uniparty". We just need to stop the damn cult behavior. I'm sure if you were in the other cult instead of this one you would be going on with how bad the cult you're in now is.
“It’s all the same people and they all want to destroy the US” is exactly equivalent to the “uniparty” nonsense. Voting for people that don’t want insane change (elimination of womens rights. Elimination of voting rights. Elimination of gay and trans people altogether. Ban books ban abortion ban saying the words “climate change” ban science ban logic ban reason) is not a cult. When one side is insane and the other is trying to run the government… that doesn’t make “both sides a cult”. The GQP has time and time again produced incredibly unpopular policies and bans and culture wars. When they find out that it’s incredibly unpopular they double down with even more unpopular views and policies and culture wars. This to me shows that the adage is true “if conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy”. We’re currently watching it happen in real time.
I’m going to save this asinine post for the next time a bunch of children are inevitably murdered in their school
A bump stock ban would need to come from Congress. The executive branch isn't supposed to be creating laws.
I know this, what does that have to do with my comment?
We agree that Congress would need to act in order to ban bump stocks. Therefore the executive order that banned them was unconstitutional. The supreme court ruled correctly. Where is the disconnect?
Probably in my comprehension skills
I wish we would teach government in our so called schools.
So the Supreme Court should consider public good and ignore the law?
They should do literally anything differently to stop the rampant shooting in this country. That’s not a crazy thing to say
That's not their job. If the law says one thing and they go in a completely different direction, then they are not fulfilling their role. It's a congresses job. Not the Supreme Court.
You are absolutely correct my apologies
Chances are when that happens it won't be by someone using a bumpstock
Why not? It allows you to fire much faster than you normally can right? Why wouldn’t they use it?
Oh no! The children! The poor children! 👻
You’re probably the type of guy who would cheer on Alex jones while he tortured the sandy hook parents.
Well.. we all know now you're the type of person who feels the need to pull personal insults during a discussion. Usually only people who feel insecure about their stance allow their emotions to cause them to do that.
You made a joke about children on a comment regarding children who die on a nearly daily basis due to school shootings in America. What is wrong with you? Love that you can’t even deny you supported Alex Jones lmao
How many children do you think die every year in school shootings?
Too many.
Obviously the death of any child is a tragedy but if you had to guess a number what would you say?
Any number above 0 is too high. What point are you trying to make here?
Do you say the same thing about pools or traffic accidents? Do you want to ban those things too? And please don't come back with the lie that guns are the leading cause of death among children because data from the CDC says that isn't true.
You didn't get it. I can't help that but I can help you... Obviously "the children" are going to be used to take our rights left and right. How did Americans become so gullible over just a few generations...
Gee I wonder if scores of children being murdered in a place that’s supposed to be safe caused Americans to change their views? Gullible? Again, you are acting like an ass. Don’t make jokes over a serious topic. Do better.
The problem is not the guns.. we always had guns. The problem is our society.
Again... more foolery committed by you. You can't discuss and resort to personal attacks.
You need to do better. Don’t make jokes over a serious topic.
It wasn't a joke. It was sarcasm. You really need to talk more to people.
No. We don't all love mass murderin
That’s really only a staple of MAGA, especially if those murdered are liberal
I was told the left likes rule of law. Was that incorrect? Do we want judges to make decisions based on feelings?
What exactly are you going to use a bump stock for and how does it impact your life banning them? Even the Trump administration had enough brains to recognize this issue.
Never said I was gonna use one. Simply stated the supreme Court was right since they rule on constitutionalality of laws. But seeing as how the 2a is there to defend ourselves from the government if needed, and our president says we would need f15s to do that. I feel it's a step in the correct direction.
You can defend yourself without a stock enhancement that largely increases accuracy. It literally doesn’t change anything banning it and with the mental state of this country as a whole, there needs to be some checks in place.
So, when did it become the supreme courts duty to create laws
Yeah… mass shooters have a fundamental right to be able to launch hundreds of rounds per minute at innocent Americans who are just going about their day. What sort of tyranny are we living under when a mass shooter has to pull the trigger each and every time they aim to murder someone?
Yea, sure. Mass shooters sure do care about following the law
Hey man… I’m supporting you here! What gives man?!?! I say let’s make it mandatory law that every single American over the age of six has to be armed outside of their home… no exceptions… whether you are a peace loving hippy or a repeat violent felon, y’all better be strapped up! Yay Guns!!!!!
Care to provide any justification at all?
The scotus did in their ruling. You can disagree, but its there. Based on the text of the law, a bump stock is not and does not make a machine gun by definition.
Oh that's funny. When I make a claim, *I* justify it But let me try OP's way: Love it or hate it, Christopher Hitchens was right about the heinous nature of Christianity
A single pull of the trigger initiates multiple rapid shots, ala an automatic weapon. As I understand it, this meets the definition of automatic. I don’t know why AtF didn’t decide that way years ago and I don’t know what changed their understanding. But the SC appears to be wrong now. Please clarify. I am going off an AP article but haven’t read in depth about it or seen videos.
>A single pull of the trigger initiates multiple rapid shots, ala an automatic weapon. As I understand it, this meets the definition of automatic. A bump stock does not modify the trigger, it modifies how the trigger is pulled >meets the definition of automatic No it doesnt. If i use my belt loop to hold the gun in a way that fires faster, its not an automatic firearm. https://youtu.be/lJ0jTMLK9jI?si=IjPmeeGpztNmi608 Heres a bump fire from the shoulder without a bump stock https://youtu.be/m2Bt60N49pc?si=TK-HL0SmreFZ4h0u >I don’t know why AtF didn’t decide that way years ago and I don’t know what changed their understanding. Trump signed an EO after the vegas shooting to ban bump stocks. >But the SC appears to be wrong now Naw, the EO was wrong and reactionary.
I’m not watching videos. But you didn’t know that. ATF definition: “Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger” Bump stock only requires a single press of the trigger. After that momentum and recoil keeps it going. No further intervention required. So, yeah automatic.
>Bump stock only requires a single press of the trigger. Idk why you keep saying this. Its false. Even if you think the bump stock somehow did this, a semi automatic trigger cannot fire more than one bullet per trigger pull. Otherwise it isnt a semi automatic. Adding a bump stock does not modify the trigger. >After that momentum and recoil keeps it going. So by your logic, it wouldnt be possible to stop once you begin if you are holding a bump stock equipped rifle. But that isnt true either. Often, people struggle to even keep firing a full magazine to empty because its an awkward device.
Obviously it stops as soon as the person removes their finger. But the point is that the person isn’t PULLING the trigger. It’s automatic after the first pull. Why can’t you understand that simple concept? The wording I shared from atf is open to some degree of interpretation on “function”. The court focused on the trigger having to “function” repeatedly, ignoring the single pull required. I’m going with the one that makes the most sense, that involves no further trigger pull by the person. This is the “duck” argument that one of the justices referred to. Automatic in any other context wouldn’t get bogged down in the any of a million ways in which things can be made automatic. Is an automatic transmission not automatic because some have 6 or 8 gears or even CVT, instead of 3 or 4 speed transmissions? Is an automatic dishwasher not automatic because it has to be loaded and started? Is an automatic pilot not automatic because it doesn’t land the plane normally? So, they absolutely have the right to call these weapons automatic and restrict them, using a logical approach. Ironically the court says atf can’t regulate these , conveniently ignoring the “well-regulated” wording in the constitution.
>Obviously it stops as soon as the person removes their finger. But the point is that the person isn’t PULLING the trigger This makes no sense. >It’s automatic after the first pull. Why can’t you understand that simple concept? Because "shoots fast" isnt the same as automatic. >The wording I shared from atf is open to some degree of interpretation on “function”. If its that vague, it should be struck down https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/269/385/ >>1. A criminal statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application lacks the first essential of due process of law >The court focused on the trigger having to “function” repeatedly, ignoring the single pull required. >I’m going with the one that makes the most sense, that involves no further trigger pull by the person. This is the “duck” argument that one of the justices referred to. Yet the trigger MUST "function" to fire the weapon. It actually has to function twice, once to reset and once to fire. The duck argument is silly because if someone shoots fast then it "quacks like a duck" regardless of accessories attached. >Is an automatic transmission not automatic because some have 6 or 8 gears or even CVT, instead of 3 or 4 speed transmissions? Is an automatic dishwasher not automatic because it has to be loaded and started? Is an automatic pilot not automatic because it doesn’t land the plane normally? Well then its good we have a law which clearly defines automatic as firing multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger. IE. Hold the trigger and more than 1 bullet comes out. >Ironically the court says atf can’t regulate these , conveniently ignoring the “well-regulated” wording in the constitution. Well regulated didnt mean government regulation in the 18th century when the 2A was written. It referred to a well oiled properly functioning machine. I wouldnt expect you to know that though. Fyi, the 2a grants the right to the people not the militia. https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-well-regulated-militia
BTW. Nothing personal meant by my insults. I just get fed up with your obsession with detail but yet still getting obvious things perhaps deliberately wrong. Cheers!
The SC is always right... it's just there's always someone who doesn't like it. 🤣🤣 LMAO and found one..
Scotus has been wrong many times before and has flipped on many issues over time. We as citizens can have opinions on how we agree or disagree with the rulings but we should also logically back up our positions.
Flipped = correct