“ The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law”

domer76 said:
Odd that they did not find that the equivalent of a machine gun was not a credible threat to the physical safety of another.
Click to expand...
As we saw in the Las Vegas massacre

They had to come up with something so imported the legislation facade, as I said, you knew it was bogus when they had to pull out and examine the actual blueprints of how the bump stock worked to distinguish how it didn’t technically turned a weapon into a classic machine gun
 
zymurgy said:
you shit stains need to just go away

the bump stock was a sound decision because it was based on not having legislation, but using the executive branch to expand the reach of power. if you want to expand on a machine gun, do it via congress, not the president's executive actions - or better yet get the fuck out of this country and move to a place with a dictator that has the power do do what you shit stains desire - to dictate
Click to expand...
Go FUCK YOURSELF FUCKTARD!
 
zymurgy said:
why I could live with presidents not issuing EOs?

or why you are sophomoric

the latter has to do with retardism

the former to do with limited government
Click to expand...
How my explanation is “sophomoric,” or, not actual common sense, and please, spare us the Jonathan Turley type bullshit
 
archives said:
As we saw in the Las Vegas massacre

They had to come up with something so imported the legislation facade, as I said, you knew it was bogus when they had to pull out and examine the actual blueprints of how the bump stock worked to distinguish how it didn’t technically turned a weapon into a classic machine gun
Click to expand...
Exactly. “Technically”

Rather than the fact that bump stocks can fire more rapidly than some machine guns.
 
domer76 said:
Odd that they did not find that the equivalent of a machine gun was not a credible threat to the physical safety of another.
Click to expand...
They need to come up with a metric for how dangerous something has to be before it gets regulated as heavily as fully automatic firearms. At one point Congress felt it necessary to regulate them much more heavily, and the country seems mostly ok with it.
 
archives said:
Bullshit

When they had to pull out and examine the drawings to demonstrate technically how the bump stock worked you knew they were searching for a rationale to sell. The argument you, and the Court, floated is just a charade, again, is based upon Textualism, which is exposed as total bullshit with the “common sense” explanation in this case
Click to expand...
Poor anchovies, Have you ever shot a rifle with a bumpstock?
 
zymurgy said:
because congress legislated

any other retarded sophomoric questions?
Click to expand...
This is the rationale Thomas used in the ruling:

“Nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock.”

Nothing changes? Jesus fucking Christ
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
I am unhappy with TRUMPTARDS LIKE you!
Click to expand...
Rest assured I will remain here for no reason but to keep you happy.

arq-3dflx7_t3-jpg.1571003
 
domer76 said:
Exactly. “Technically”

Rather than the fact that bump stocks can fire more rapidly than some machine guns.
Click to expand...


You do understand you don't need a bump stock to make a semi auto fire like a full automatic weapon.

ATTACH]


iu
 

Attachments

  • 1718993765833.png
    1718993765833.png
    793.4 KB · Views: 1
domer76 said:
This is the rationale Thomas used in the ruling:

“Nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock.”

Nothing changes? Jesus fucking Christ
Click to expand...
congress banned machine guns - congress can also ban bumpstocks

the president did not ban machine guns because he didn't have the authority. he also has no authority to ban bump stocks

I don't think this is hard - either you are really really stupid, or you are pretending because you don't want to do things the right way, you want them done the fast way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top