Supreme Court strikes down federal ban on bump stocks

what issues are you talking about

1) Reagan strongly supported our military
2) Reagan-as a president-opposed gun bans
3) Reagan was against abortion on demand
4) Reagan cut taxes
5) Reagan supported Israel

 

He signed the gun ban which you oppose into law. He legalized an army of illegals, and most importantly, he didn't make a career out of dividing the nation with Trump-Talk with comments like "Dems are commie-light-gun banning haters of hard working Americans, haters of law enforcement and supporters of all sorts of extremist behavior".

Support Israel? Heck the US is bending over backwards supporting them in the recent conflict. As a matter of fact, he said some things about Israel, which would be called anti-Israel in today's GOP, - like admitting there will never be peace as long as Israel continues to settle Gaza and West Bank.

Abortion? In June of 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill that legalized abortion in California.

There is a reason why 49 States, including the deepest blue voted for him, and I really wish we'll one day find a president like him again, but unfortunately what the GOP is pushing now, it the polar opposite, - a true divider.

 

you have been edified several times why Reagan signed the pro gun main bill.
Remind me how the judges Reagan appointed generally ruled on abortion
what was Reagan's position on abortion when he ran for President?

it's your democrat party that has gone far astray

 

And Kennedy would refuse to associate himself with the Democrats.

 

Ive never seen much use with the often erroneous claims as to what Reagan would have done etc. My favorite is gun banners braying that the NRA supported (part) of the NFA or some supported the GCA of 68. It's worthless because that was before it was obvious that democrats were using gun control to attack people who didn't buy into their collectivist nonsense. Back then it was merely: a) a good faith but mistaken belief such laws would reduce crime or b) an attempt to pander to voters without actually attacking criminals and being called "racist"

 

Sorry, but I'm not big into excuses.

I dont think Reagan's appointees ruled on abortion, since abortion was a "right" until a year ago.

As I said, I liked Reagan, and I wish there were more like him. Your boy is the polar opposite of him, and he transformed the GOP into something that is unrecognizable from the Reagan days.

I'm not a Dem, but then again you already knew that.

 

how do you think Scalia would have voted in the Dobbs Decision? are you familiar with his dissent in Casey

 

That's interesting. What does the National Guard use these days?

I understand that the regular Army has ditched the burst fire M4 for the true full auto M4A1.

But sometimes the National Guard gets the old weapons that the regular Army no longer uses.

 

some still have old M16 rifles-at least where my archery team used to practice, that is what they had

 

You cited it having a similar rate of fire to a full auto rifle. Too high a rate of fire would be "too fast". See how that works chief?

 

You mean too fast for you?

To me "similar rate" mean just that, nothing more.

 

I don't know Cotton, you tell us since its your quote. You seem to be confused here, first you say its an issue and then you say its not.

The M16 is a full auto rifle, but not all full auto rifles are m16s nor do all full auto rifles have the cyclic rate of an m16 nor does a bump stock fire at cyclic. Close but not the whole cigar.

An AR15 with a bumpstock is almost per se less dangerous than an M16 or an AR15 with a drop in auto sear, the 3rd hole drilled, a full auto rated BCG and buffer. The ergos are different etc in such a way that you can only fire a bumpstock from certain positions. Whereas you can fire standard full auto with your off hand sticking it around a corner, or shoot from prone, or do any number of advantageous things you can't do while vigorously jerking off a rifle.. A bumpstock is essentially a range toy.

 

I wonder if Swiss Militiamen can be used as a valid example of the sorts of guns that are covered by the the right to keep and bear arms. They are allowed to keep full-auto rifles in their homes.

 

Where did I say it's an issue? And I already explained I never said anything about it being too fast. You said that, not me.

Yes, that's what I said.

 

Yes, they keep military rifles at home, but without ammo.

 

Without -issued- ammo.

 

They are free to buy their own ammo.

 

With permits, yes, but the ammo which they buy at shooting clubs also has to be used at the clubs. The military rifles are for military use, and nothing else.

 

you in favor of that type of law?

 

No, but the Swiss do, and many Americans are quick to bring up the Swiss laws as some kind of gold standard without realizing they actually have strict gun control compared to US.

 

almost every country has "strict gun control" at a national level compared to the USA's federal laws. Most pro gun advocates invoke countries like Switzerland to note that they have a lower rate of violent crime than say countries such as Russia, South Africa and Mexico-all of which have worse gun control laws. I have yet to meet anyone who is actually a real supporter of the second amendment who wants Swiss laws in the USA

 

Unlike Switzerland, South Africa allows gun owners to keep ammo, so there is that.

 

you ought to check out a bit more what is going on in South Africa.

I support elimination of all federal gun control laws save 1) some import restrictions can be constitutional and 2) the federal government has the proper power to restrict the possession of firearms or firearms use in certain federal facilities or properties

 

The ruling about machine guns? I think he might have supported it

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” - Scalia

Why? What am I missing?

 

Scalia's dicta-according to three former clerks of his whom I know well or worked with, noted that was designed to keep an erratic Justice Kennedy on board. Souter and Breyer lobbied Kennedy with claims that Scalia and Thomas wanted to get rid of the Gun Control act of 1968 and strike down state gun laws.