• NeuromancerOPM
    link
    fedilink
    -111 year ago

    I’m not opposed to all restrictions. I’m opposed to restrictions that make it hard for me to carry concealed for self defense. Bump stock are not something I’d use for self defense or fighting a government. As such I don’t care if it’s banned. That’s what the 2nd amendment is about. A bump stock isn’t an arm. It’s an accessory

      • NeuromancerOPM
        link
        fedilink
        -81 year ago

        Be civil.

        The 2nd amendment isn’t being argued. A bump stock is not an arm. Have you read anything on the case? What is being argued is if it creates a machine gun. It does not.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -91 year ago

          The prohibition of functional components of an arm is reasonably an infringement of the right to bear arms.

          • NeuromancerOPM
            link
            fedilink
            -111 year ago

            How? Do you think Scalia didn’t know what he was talking about ?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -91 year ago

              I think he’s carrying water for his political buddies that have a vested interest in restricting our rights

              • NeuromancerOPM
                link
                fedilink
                -121 year ago

                He is dead. So you think his zombie corpse has a vested interest in restricting our rights?

                  • NeuromancerOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -81 year ago

                    I’m not opposed to every restriction. I’m just opposed to most restrictions. The bump stock isn’t even about the 2nd. It’s about can the atf change the meanings of words. While I don’t mind the ban. The logic is bad and that’s why the ban should be overturned. It does not create a machine gun. It does not meet the requirements of the law.