“ The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law”

[domer76]

Gomer,

You can feed an AR 15 500 rounds per minute? Who would thunk?
You really don't need even the rubber band if you want to save the environment as your belt loop will work fine.

Great. I’m sure that’s the method that fucker in Las Vegas used instead of guns mounted on tripods.

Shooting from the hip with your thumb locked in your fucking belt loop. Yep. The same as a bump stock.

Fucking moron.

 

[Lionfish]

Great. I’m sure that’s the method that fucker in Las Vegas used instead of guns mounted on tripods.

Shooting from the hip with your thumb locked in your fucking belt loop. Yep. The same as a bump stock.

Fucking moron.

Gomer, just a thought, stay out of topics you clearly know nothing about.

 

[Lionfish]

No, but I did qualify on the M50 machine gun, does that count

Always comical when the gun huggers try to outflank others employing gun semantics and technology

 

[archives]

You just skipped over the judicial part of that, ay? Genius. If you ignore what people say you can just pretend what you want them to have said is what they said and argue that. Yeah, it is a logical fallacy and everyone will notice that you can't think well, but it's soooo much easier arguing about stuff if you ignore at least half of what was said and fill in the blanks with wishes.

Really, and what judicial part was that?

 

[archives]

Point was made

 

[domer76]

Gomer, just a thought, stay out of topics you clearly know nothing about.

Let’s see, bitch. A physical modification to a gun to make it fire automatically with a single function of the trigger by the shooter.

That’s the statutory definition of a machine gun. Not your laughable belt loop bullshit.

And Thomas claims the bumpstock changes nothing. LOL

 

[Lionfish]

Let’s see, bitch. A physical modification to a gun to make it fire automatically with a single function of the trigger by the shooter.

That’s the statutory definition of a machine gun. Not your laughable belt loop bullshit.

And Thomas claims the bumpstock changes nothing. LOL

You are too ignorant on this topic continue this discussion.

 

[Damocles]

Really, and what judicial part was that?

The part where it applies only “after a judge determines that an individual poses a credible threat” of physical violence. You know... Judges are judicial, ay wot?

 

[Into the Night]

“WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence.”

“In their first Second Amendment case since they expanded gun rights in 2022, the justices ruled 8-1 in favor of a 1994 ban on firearms for people under restraining orders to stay away from their spouses or partners. The justices reversed a ruling from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that had struck down the law.”

“Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the law uses “common sense” and applies only “after a judge determines that an individual poses a credible threat” of physical violence.”

The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims

The justices reversed a ruling from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that had struck down the law.

apnews.com

Wait a minute, so now “common sense” is suddenly the denominator in SCOTUS decisions? Common sense doesn’t dictate that bump stocks are a rapid-fire gun accessory that makes it easier to shoot more people quicker as Steven Paddock displayed? So much for the Originalism/Textualism facade

And what do the gun nuts think now that their Court has just ruled that the Second Amendment can be regulated? That gun rights aren’t any more absolute than any other right in the Constitution?

The decision was always a given, this Court was never going to decide otherwise and give Democrats another issue to echo in the upcoming election

It is not possible to restrict or ban weapons with any effectiveness.

It's just too easy to make guns and the ammunition for them.

The right of self defense is absolute.

The 2nd amendment does not grant any rights. It simply prohibits any level of government from banning or restricting any weapon.

SCOTUS cannot change the Constitution.


That said, it is also constitutional for a judge to remove effective citizenship (by putting someone in jail for example). If convicted, YOU LOSE RIGHTS.

In this case, the conviction is one of violating a no-contact order and presenting a threat. Yes, the court can order that such cannot just go out a buy a gun, but in the end IT DOES NOT PREVENT HIM FROM OBTAINING A GUN.

If he commits murder with it, then he should be convicted of murder (and suffer the appropriate penalties, including death).

 

[Into the Night]

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

Machine guns are legal. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to ban them or limit them.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Congress has no authority to ban machine guns or bump stocks. See the 2nd amendment. They are specifically prohibited from doing either.

 

[domer76]

You are too ignorant on this topic continue this discussion.

Are you trying to say that’s not what a bumpstock does? Because that’s EXACTLY what a bumpstock does.

 

[RB 60]

No, but I did qualify on the M50 machine gun, does that count

Always comical when the gun huggers try to outflank others employing gun semantics and technology

You wanna get technical? You wanna start with coefficents? Wind drift? Drop rates and bullet weights?
Then there's case prep. Seating depth off the lands....

 

[RB 60]

Are you trying to say that’s not what a bumpstock does? Because that’s EXACTLY what a bumpstock does.

A bumpstock does NOT transform a semi auto into a machine gun.
A machine gun will fire continuously as long as the trigger is pulled, until the magazine is emptied.
Even with the bumpstock, a semi auto MUST release the trigger before another round is fired.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Who was the one? Thomas is my guess.

Yep. Surprise, surprise.

 

[domer76]

A bumpstock does NOT transform a semi auto into a machine gun.
A machine gun will fire continuously as long as the trigger is pulled, until the magazine is emptied.
Even with the bumpstock, a semi auto MUST release the trigger before another round is fired.

“A single function of the trigger” by the operator and the gun “automatically” does the rest. That was ATF’s definition and that’s what a bump stock does.

 

[RB 60]

“A single function of the trigger” by the operator and the gun “automatically” does the rest. That was ATF’s definition and that’s what a bump stock does.

The ATF doesn't understand the difference if they think a bump stock turns a semi into a full auto.
In a semi auto, the trigger MUST return to it's set position before another round can be fired.

 

[zymurgy]

Congress has no authority to ban machine guns or bump stocks. See the 2nd amendment. They are specifically prohibited from doing either.

yawn

 

[Into the Night]

Are you trying to say that’s not what a bumpstock does? Because that’s EXACTLY what a bumpstock does.

There is nothing illegal about a bumpstock.

 

[Into the Night]

A bumpstock does NOT transform a semi auto into a machine gun.
A machine gun will fire continuously as long as the trigger is pulled, until the magazine is emptied.
Even with the bumpstock, a semi auto MUST release the trigger before another round is fired.

Heck...a fat gut can be used as a bumpstock!