“Fossil fuel exec says Supreme Court should limit government power on climate policy”
I’m a big shooter and liberal gun nut. Not seeing the reason for bump stocks. Now that’s a dangerous argument when talking about a right! I see a lot of libs saying we have to have “reasons” for our various sorts of guns.
But I don’t get bump stocks. Don’t feel like I’m missing anything from the ban. Thoughts?
Bump stocks just provide the feeling of shooting an automatic, which shouldn’t be restricted imo.
We are on the same page. I get the lawsuit. You want to keep the government in check but I don’t own one, never would and don’t see a purpose for them.
I have heard the argument they are for disabled shooters and not to be ableist, but if you can’t safely operate a firearms. You shouldn’t be shooting one.
Removed by mod
What kind of weapon do you hunt with?
Ruger model 11100 semi-auto .22 long rifle for Coons. (My vote for a buy it for life rifle)
For whitetail: Sako Synthetic Stock A7 .270 win centerfire rifle with fluted barrel (fucker weighs less than the barrel off any of my other rifles. Also the only gun I’ve ever sighted in at 150yds and sent two bullets back to back through the same bullet hole which anyone will tell uou is way cooler than spliting an arrow lol), Remmington 12ga (do not buy Remmington anymore, changed owners awil3 back and have sucked ever since). What I hunt whitetail the most with tho is my compound bow… but I also have a crossbow for when its crunch time lol.
AR-15 for Coyote, Beaver. Also my general everyday carry I keep mounted on the ATV ever since the increased black bear population. Also great for hunting tannerite that gets lost in a wild beaver damn lol.
Then last but not least is what I will be trying out for the first time this upcoming season. A recently refurbished WWI Arasaka Japanese sniper rifle that my neighbor who hated me growing up out of nowhere pulls me aside one day and says “here I want you to have this rifle i found fighting in the pacific during ww2. Youve always been like a son to me” ??? Dafuq? Fuck you, Dick (real guys name) you call the fucking cops on me for playing drums any time of day so i can never play, for riding dirt bikes and gocart IN OUR OWN FUCKING YARD, retrieving balls that went into your yard, and THEN you see me having a hypoglycemic episode, the one time to call the cops and instead you fucking stared at me amd went inside. Man fuck, Dick but mad respect for the crothety old ass motherfucker, he really went above the call for duty when it came to being a fucking Dick. Sorry, what was your question?
Removed, R1, no slurs.
What is wrong with my stance ? Also don’t use the r word
Also don’t use the r word
Crazy how it’s always a conservative using that word around here.
Crazy how it’s only the leftists who throw a fit over it
“Liberals don’t like using the names of disabilities as pejorative slurs”
How awful.
Crazy how the ogliarchs got us fighting each other
Removed by mod
Bump stocks leave way too much room for user error compared to an OEM manufactured fully automatic firearm.
That is one reason I don’t mind them being banned. I don’t see a valid use case for one other than idiots being idiots. I do not see it infringing on any rights to ban a stupid accessory.
All my videos are not controlled automatic fire but spray ammo everywhere.
Can you do me a favor, can you edit your prior post and remove the R word. It is against lemm.ee rules
“… shall not be infringed.” Not “…shall not be infringed except…” or “…shall not be infringed but…” or “…unless…” It’s “…shall not be infringed.” The end.
It’s funny because an earlier bit of context that you have cut out from the 2nd discusses the needs of this militia to be well regulated.
You missed the comma between the militia and bear arms statements. Below are common instances when a comma should be used. None of the uses of a comma make the 2nd phrase conditional on the 1st.
- Separating items in a list of three or more
- Connecting two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction
- Setting apart non-restrictive relative clauses
Setting apart non-restrixtive relative clauses seems a simple solution to what yall don’t get.
The grouping of an amendment already implies the components are related, as each amendment is supposed to represent a single right.
If you are not a part of a well regulated militia, you have no right to bear arms.
See how I used a comma to form a single thought chaining multiple requirements?
Each amendment doesn’t represent a single right. The 1st covers freedom of religion, freedom of speech, & freedom of the press.
The “if” placed the conditional requirement not the comma.
The linguistics at the time didn’t use the coding logic of if then as often outside of scientific scenarios.
There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership. What separate right are you proposing the same sentence is declaring?
There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership.
No that isn’t clear at all.
It was originally thought it was a right given to the states and not the people. It has not become a right of the people.
It some states it was mandatory that you owned a gun and ammo in case you were called up.
The 2nd amendment was written to allow the states to build militias. In return the federal government was supposed to a small or zero standing army. That isn’t how it all worked out.
Given that gun free zones make easy shooting victims, what can have government regulations will prevent people dedicated to commiting homicide?
If you take a cup of water out of a bucket, does it leave behind a cup shaped opening in the water?
The courts don’t view the militia statement as a requirement. It sounds like you’ve never read a court case on topic topic or heard the debate over the comma.
Sounds like we are in agreement that the amendment is able to be changed to be relevant to modern interpretations.
I think the 2nd amendment was poorly written. I’ve read on it extensively and I don’t think it conveys the idea behind it. I think since the courts have further muddled the topic.
Be careful with modern interpretations. I assume you are a liberal which means you’d hate heller. Heller is a modern view the 2nd amendment.
You mean, you have an idea in your head that you think should be enforced on everybody despite it not being democratically placed.
The word for that is fascist. And it just so happens to be the right to deadly violence lmao.
Irony is dead.
That makes little sense. Can you expand? Democratically placed sounds like you don’t get out government.
We are a constitutional republic. Not everything is voted on. It’s what protects our rights. Otherwise things like gay marriage could be illegal by a vote or trans people could be voted out. With the constitution they are protected from the tyranny of the majority.
And none of that applies to thoughts living in your head. You want to enforce your beliefs on everybody without any government process.
Those beliefs is in regards to your right to deadly violence.
You are a violent fascist who uses linguistics on democracy and constitutional republic to dismiss the violence you are advocating.
be careful with modern interpretations
Man, I can’t get over you flip-flopping right here.
You literally chimed in to insist upon a modern interpretation, then immediately said nobody else should do so.
Conservatives are inherently incapable of honest debate.
I’m fine with the heller decision. Are you ?
You’re fine with the next court updating these decisions, too, right?
What a desperate attempt to leap from topic to topic to hide from the truth of what you advocated for.
Sad.
Even Scalia said there are limits on the 2nd amendment.
What military purpose does a bump stock have ?
What military purpose does a bump stock have ?
Don’t know, don’t care, stop crying for our rights to be restricted
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
I’m not opposed to all restrictions.
And unlike you, I’m not a bootlicker
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.
Removed by mod
The prohibition of functional components of an arm is reasonably an infringement of the right to bear arms.
How? Do you think Scalia didn’t know what he was talking about ?
