Supreme Court overturns bump stock ban…

[tvc184]

About 30 minutes ago the US Supreme Court overturned the ATF bump stock ban. 

[LumRaiderFan]

Good call.

[tvc184]

The 3 progressive justices again sided with feelings over the law.

Sotomayor wrote a dissent which was signed off on by Kagan and Jackson. I might read that later.

 The ATF clearly overstepped their authority and wrote an opinion that violated the law but you never know how the justices will vote. 

[CardinalBacker]

Yeah… as a strong 2A supporter and AR owner, bump stocks shouldn’t be available. In a perfect world manufacturers would recognize that these parts serve no valuable purpose other than indiscriminately firing rounds into a general area and refuse to manufacture them. But as always, the gun lobby will skip right over the prudent thing and stand on an indefensible position, making the sane 2A supporters looking like slack-jawed morons, too. 
 

We shouldn’t need a bumpstock ban… we (gun owners) should demand that these things not be produced. 
 

I remember watching clips from Las Vegas the morning after and saying, “holy____… that’s actually full auto!” 
 

if the weapon bucking is the force applying pressure on the trigger, there’s no chance of aiming.  It’s all about spraying a crowd down with 5.56 rounds.  The next time somebody goes on a rampage with a bump stock, ALL of us are guilty for not keeping the things off of the street. 

[CardinalBacker]

And before all of y’all start yelling “shall not be infringed,” who wants to argue that the 2A rights of ex-convicts are being infringed? My guess is that there are tons of people/places in which you don’t mind a few restrictions. 

[thetragichippy]

22 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

We shouldn’t need a bumpstock ban… we (gun owners) should demand that these things not be produced. 

There are a lot of things we don't need.....We don't need to drink and drive.....I have not heard any group that is pro gun restriction want breathalyzers on all vehicles.... That would save about 11,000 lives a year. 1/3 of all accidents are alcohol related.....

 

23 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

 The next time somebody goes on a rampage with a bump stock, ALL of us are guilty for not keeping the things off of the street. 

Are we all guilty of the deaths that involve alcohol? 

and lastly, you say you own a weapon (an AR) that the left wants to ban because it fires too fast, yet your against an attachment that makes a gun shoot faster....... who gets to decide the maximum speed? 

If we just got tough on crime I believe things would work out just fine......

 

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

There are a lot of things we don't need.....We don't need to drink and drive.....I have not heard any group that is pro gun restriction want breathalyzers on all vehicles.... That would save about 11,000 lives a year. 1/3 of all accidents are alcohol related.....

 

Are we all guilty of the deaths that involve alcohol? 

and lastly, you say you own a weapon (an AR) that the left wants to ban because it fires too fast, yet your against an attachment that makes a gun shoot faster....... who gets to decide the maximum speed? 

If we just got tough on crime I believe things would work out just fine......

 

How would cracking down on crime prevented have what happened in Vegas?

 

The law of the land is no automatic weapons. If you get caught with a switch on your Glock, it’s a problem.  But you can legally modify your AR to get the same results? It’s a loophole that shouldn’t be there legally, and gun owners should boycott. 
 

I love my AR. I believe everybody should get one. But there’s a big difference between a 30 round mag that’s fired semi-automatically, with at least the possibility of aiming at particular targets…. And a bump stop equipped AR that quite simply can’t be aimed. When the left argues that an AR serves no purpose, I disagree. But when some 2A nut is arguing that their fully automatic AR (by why of a bumpstock which renders the weapon useless in regards to accurate fire) is legal, I have to disagree, too. 
 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

And before all of y’all start yelling “shall not be infringed,” who wants to argue that the 2A rights of ex-convicts are being infringed? My guess is that there are tons of people/places in which you don’t mind a few restrictions. 

Shall not be infringed was not even an issue in this case.

 The Supreme Court allowed and in fact didn’t even debate the ban on machine guns as being lawful. 

 The Supreme Court only looked at the law passed by Congress, accepted it as law and looked to see if bump stocks fit the legal definition as passed by Congress and signed by the president.

 The easy answer was no, it did not and the ATF was making up their own definition which is unconstitutional. 

In another comment you stated that bump stocks serve “no valuable purpose”. I agree but do we throw out the Constitution?

We don’t need neo nazis  or klan members rhetoric either but are willing to pick and choose who gets free speech?

I support the Supreme Court decision on an item that I don’t want even if you gave me one. I support it because it follows statutory law and the Constitution. 

Do you suggest that the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution for political or dislike purposes? 

[tvc184]

3 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

How would cracking down on crime prevented have what happened in Vegas?

I can fire 5-6 rounds with a semi auto AR per second. That would empty a 30 round magazine in about 6 seconds. With an approximately (slow) 3 seconds to reload, that is about 180 rounds per minute…. with an over the counter semiautomatic rifle.

According to Wikipedia the shooting last for 10 minutes. That is time to fire almost 2,000 in semiautomatic. 

Would a true bump stock ban have prevented Vegas? 

Would a lawful suppressor (with a $200 tax stamp) have done more selective damage before people started knowing what was happening? Remember that is a legal item. 

With a semiautomatic rifle the Miami nightclub shooter killed 49 victims as opposed to 60 in Vegas. I guess 49 is  more acceptable than 60…..

[CardinalBacker]

So y’all think this is acceptable?

And you don’t mind if it happens again.  
 

Pro-life my you-know-what. 

[tvc184]

Is it acceptable?

No, in most states it’s called Capital Murder. 
 

Would it make you feel better if it was a semiautomatic?

Perhaps the most murders in a school shooting where 32 innocent people were killed with a tiny .22 caliber pistol and a 9mm?

In 2017 when the Las Vegas shooting happened, the FBI reported 17,294 murders. An average seems to be about 16,000 murders annually from all causes.

About 350 people are killed nationwide with rifles of all types, not just high capacity or automatic weapons (of which Vegas wasn’t). Personal weapons of hands or feet or held in the hand such as a knife or club, accounts for about 3,000 per year. So we are about 10 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death than we are with any type of rifle.

About 14,000 are killed by drunk drivers each year.

Is any of that acceptable?

You could remove every rifle from this country and it wouldn’t change the murder rate.

Do you believe that laws or the Constitution should be ignored if something is offensive to you, because that is what you are saying?

 Do you think that people should be put in jail for something that is not a crime, because that is what you are saying?

And for your woke example of pro life, what does abortion have to do with it? Does your logic mean that people who are pro choice think it’s acceptable?

 

[Reagan]

 

 

[baddog]

All I can say is…..What’s to hate about a gun? I don’t care if you own a tank. 

[LumRaiderFan]

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

So y’all think this is acceptable?

And you don’t mind if it happens again.  
 

Pro-life my you-know-what. 

Absolutely ridiculous post.

[tvc184]

I finally got around to reading Sotomayor’s dissent.

She makes a kind of logical argument. Sotomayor then negates her own stance however when describing it. It was shown that a person can fire in the same rapid fashion by hooking your thumb through your belt loop and firing from the hip without changing any right parts. Her response was that it wasn’t as accurate. So her definition of a machine gun is now is apparently not how fast you can fire but simply how accurate you are when doing so.

The bottom line is that the definition of a machine gun by law passed by Congress is a firearm that can fire more than once with a “single function of the trigger”. Then she goes on to explain that the trigger resets with each shot and has to be functioned again…. making it a semiautomatic. 

She argues against herself and paints herself into a corner with the actual function of the rifle.  I could go on to take down her argument but certainly there is no point in this forum.

In the First Amendment guarantees on free speech, some disgusting things must be allowed to be said or demonstrated in the name of freedom because when the government steps in and decides whose speech is allowed, you no longer have free speech. Determining constitutionality on emotions (which was voted on by three justices in this case) is not a good thing as we might then lose any constitutional rights.

[LumRaiderFan]

49 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I finally got around to reading Sotomayor’s dissent.

She makes a kind of logical argument. Sotomayor then negates her own stance however when describing it. It was shown that a person can fire in the same rapid fashion by hooking your thumb through your belt loop and firing from the hip without changing any right parts. Her response was that it wasn’t as accurate. So her definition of a machine gun is now is apparently not how fast you can fire but simply how accurate you are when doing so.

The bottom line is that the definition of a machine gun by law passed by Congress is a firearm that can fire more than once with a “single function of the trigger”. Then she goes on to explain that the trigger resets with each shot and has to be functioned again…. making it a semiautomatic. 

She argues against herself and paints herself into a corner with the actual function of the rifle.  I could go on to take down her argument but certainly there is no point in this forum.

In the First Amendment guarantees on free speech, some disgusting things must be allowed to be said or demonstrated in the name of freedom because when the government steps in and decides whose speech is allowed, you no longer have free speech. Determining constitutionality on emotions (which was voted on by three justices in this case) is not a good thing as we might then lose any constitutional rights.

Good post, sadly, the direction of the country is being determined more and more by emotions.

[baddog]

I have no use for a bump stock, but I have no problem with anyone owning one.

[CardinalBacker]

19 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Good post, sadly, the direction of the country is being determined more and more by emotions.

So I guess your opinion on abortions is “if you don’t want one, don’t get one.”

“If you don’t like heroin, don’t inject it.”

The arguments are so hypocritical that it’s funny. A bump stock serves no purpose besides spraying down a crowd of unarmed people. But y’all will fight for the right to slaughter kids while simultaneously protesting out front of an abortion clinic.  
 

Right wingers are nuts, too. 

[5GallonBucket]

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[LumRaiderFan]

37 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

lol, yep.

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

So I guess your opinion on abortions is “if you don’t want one, don’t get one.”

“If you don’t like heroin, don’t inject it.”

The arguments are so hypocritical that it’s funny. A bump stock serves no purpose besides spraying down a crowd of unarmed people. But y’all will fight for the right to slaughter kids while simultaneously protesting out front of an abortion clinic.  
 

Right wingers are nuts, too. 

Out of all of your comments, this might be the most ridiculous; “fight for the right to slaughter kids”. Please point out anyone who believes there is a “right to slaughter kids”… and you call other people nuts?

You still don’t answer the questions and go back to emotions. 

Should people be arrested for something that isn’t a crime?

Should the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution in favor of emotions?

 Would a ban on bump stocks have prevented any crime? 

 

[CardinalBacker]

6 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Out of all of your comments, this might be the most ridiculous; “fight for the right to slaughter kids”. Please point out anyone who believes there is a “right to slaughter kids”… and you call other people nuts?

You still don’t answer the questions and go back to emotions. 

Should people be arrested for something that isn’t a crime?

Should the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution in favor of emotions?

 Would a ban on bump stocks have prevented any crime? 

 

By my guess a bump stock ban would have saved roughly half of the lives lost in Vegas. 
 

But then again, I forget that your trigger finger is as fast as full auto, so it wouldnt have mattered. 

[LumRaiderFan]

34 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

By my guess a bump stock ban would have saved roughly half of the lives lost in Vegas. 
 

But then again, I forget that your trigger finger is as fast as full auto, so it wouldnt have mattered. 

I’m sure a maniac that would kill 60 folks and wound over 400 would never ignore a ban.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

By my guess a bump stock ban would have saved roughly half of the lives lost in Vegas. 
 

But then again, I forget that your trigger finger is as fast as full auto, so it wouldnt have mattered. 

That was a Jason Aldean concert and we know he is conservative, so most of that crowd was probably conservative and pro Trump, so why would you care?

Let’s be more concerned about how many were killed and wounded instead of addressing the simple fact that he was an evil person. If evil people want you dead, they will find a way to do it. Like tvc said, if half as many were killed, that’s acceptable? I believe he could have killed more with a semi-automatic but that’s just me.

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

By my guess a bump stock ban would have saved roughly half of the lives lost in Vegas. 
 

But then again, I forget that your trigger finger is as fast as full auto, so it wouldnt have mattered. 

Not as fast but pretty darn quick but skip that as nearly meaningless. 

You continue to ignore the questions that you don’t like however. Deflection is admitting that you have no argument.

Should people go to jail for something that isn’t a crime?

Should the Supreme Court base its decisions on the Constitution and the law or emotions?

Does anyone believe there is a right to slaughter kids?

 If Congress passes a law banning bump stocks, so be it. Remember that in this decision the Supreme Court didn’t overturn machine gun laws, they only correctly and unemotionally ruled that a bump stock doesn’t fit the definition as provided by Congress.

 It comes down to the fact that the Congress didn’t pass a law that covered bump stocks. I understand that you are displeased.

You could have reduced your statements to, “I don’t like that law”. So much more simple.