Supreme Court overturns Trump-era ban on gun bump stocks

What? Would you say that if someone was touting a device that sliced tomatoes faster and more accurately? What a bunch of Luddites.

The progressive creed.

Everything that we don’t like should be banned. Everything we like should be mandatory. Everything that isn’t banned should be mandatory. Everything that isn’t mandatory should be banned.

You can ban them by passing legislation. You know, like the Constitution demands. Don’t be like your boy Trump and be dictator for a day! Stop supporting Trump being dictator for a day.

 

well given how many of you on the left keep wanting to ban guns, I think I have hit that target squarely in the ten ring

 

It makes the current ban blatantly unconstitutional. You MUST pass legislation re-defining a machine gun to implement a ban.

 

so you want to ban everything that has been part of 60 deaths? is that what you are saying.
you progressives banned alcohol about 100 years ago-how did that work out
does abortion cause dead "humans"?
how about homosexual activity?

lots of things have been responsible for far more deaths-I see lots of hypocrisy from the left
and guess what-no one who actually understands firearms believes that the bump stocks demonstrably increased the body count. BTW how many people would Paddock have killed if he used one of his airplanes, laden with aviation fuel, to slam into that crowd at 200 MPH? Well the FBI report I saw put the predicted deaths at several times the amount he shot fatally

 

The law? What Thomas found was a tortured, technical excuse not to take the opportunity to make the public safer.

Congress has sharply restricted civilian ownership of machineguns since 1934. Federal law defines a “machinegun” as a weapon that can shoot “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U. S. C. §5845(b). Shortly after the Las Vegas massacre, the Trump administration, with widespread bipartisan support, banned bump stocks as machineguns under the statute. Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress’s definition of “machinegun” and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose. When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf

 

Part of being a rightist is making things up about what leftists want. Thanks for providing yet another example.

 

well you want to ban bump stocks-tell us what is the triggering requirement for your desire to ban something

1) is it because conservatives tend to own it
2) is it because Democrat masters can pander to like minded voters by attacking it
3) because you don't understand it

do tell

 

that clueless twit on the supreme court fails right there.
AUTOMATICALLY is the key turn and the Not so "wise Latina" proved she's a dolt

 

Yes. The law. And the Constitution. You want a different outcome on guns? Amend the Constitution and pass laws. Don't whine to the people whose job is simply to tell you what the law and Constitution say at this time.

 

That's odd, I have several SEMI Auto handguns and rifles, none of them modified

You talk as if you know me but clearly don't know shlt about me.. I'm getting a bit stretched at your defamatory attack..

Time to let this one go to the judges

 

the more they hate guns (and the owners) , generally, the less they understand how they work or how to use one properly.

 

What case? It’s a strawman. Nobody made bump stocks to murder people. Automobiles were developed as weapons of war. Should we ban them because some still are used to murder?

 

if most car owners were perceived to be white Christian conservative men, and if the AAA lobbied mainly for GOP politicians, you can bet Democrats would want to ban them

 

It's all about control. I'm sure you've read Animal Farm. "All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others".

The political class are the more equal animals. You don't see any of those *********kers giving up their armed security details.

 

Looks to me like they are already finding ways around the bump stock. Just another reason why focusing on inanimate objects like the left does is stupid.

LINK: Call it the Gatling Grip instead of the FG-15 (youtube.com)

 

Here is the puzzler. Before automatic weapons were somewhat available, the government passed the unconstitutional 1934 NFA-and since Democrats had control of all federal courts for at least two decades after that law was passed, it sort of was cemented into our jurisprudential fabric. One can claim this law actually "worked" in the sense that after it was affirmed by the FDR supreme court, there were basically ZERO cases of legally registered and tax stamped automatic weapons in private hands being used in murders. YET THE DEMOCRATS-late at night and most likely contrary to the actual voice vote-injected a poison pill into the pro gun bill-the McClure Volker Firearms Owners protection act of 1986 banning "registration of automatic weapons made after may 19 1986-which the ATF ruled is a complete ban. Now why did Democrats do this (other than to try to derail the bill) when there was ZERO cases of crimes committed with legally owned automatics (those used by say the murderers of Allan Berg, or FBI Agents in Miami were illegally converted automatics

It merely proves that democrats want to harass lawful owners and this harassment resulted in creative responses such as bump stocks and the hand crank jobs

 

There is no "single function of the trigger" where bump stocks are concerned. There are multiple functions of the trigger with a bump stock. If you have 15 bullets, that trigger will function 15 separate times.

Tell me...is this a duck...



Nope, its not. Sure looks and acts like one though. Sotomayor is displaying an amazing lack of understanding of something she should educate herself on if she's going to be ruling on cases about them.

 

Know what else makes this true? They KNOW that targeting inanimate objects is useless. They know because they want to legalize marijuana, often saying that "the war on drugs is obviously useless, look at all the Americans using it!!"

 

That doesn't mean that they are not idiots. They never wanted a bump stock in the first place but as soon as they heard that they were going to get banned out they went and bought some. What are they going to do with them other than spending a few seconds going rapidly through rounds after rounds burning money and then getting bored to never using the bump stocks again. Did you go out and buy one as soon as Trump said he was going to ban them?

 

It's none of your business. But, it does illustrate how out of touch with regular United States citizens you people really are.

In The United States, the worst way to get someone to stop doing something is to tell them they aren't allowed to. That'll make them want to do it even more, even if they didn't want to do it to begin with.

I did not buy one, but then, I don't need one to rock-n-roll.

 

Another thing, I've burned ammo before; had my "mad minute" as they say. I understand the fun that comes from burning ammo and there's nothing idiotic about it.

 

Note that the rubber band works better than the bump stock or most of the modern military submachine guns they show off on Youtube.

 

you know that's BS. Tell me, how many crimes or mass shootings are done with full-automatics? You know regulations work. You've just been conditioned to think that children being shredded in a classroom is ok.

 

that's a scurrilous claim and you know it. It is gun banners who use dead children to advance their nefarious schemes. Lots of gangs have full autos

 

Make all drugs legal, then we will stop going after guns.