• Flying Squid
    link
    11829 days ago

    “The ban was imposed by the Trump administration”

    But please, gun enthusiasts, tell me again about how Biden is going to take away all of your guns any day now whereas Trump is 2A all the way.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        2829 days ago

        Mind control, space lasers… is there anything Soros and his evil Jewish cabal can’t do?

          • Flying Squid
            link
            1629 days ago

            Well that sucks because I’ve been a Jew all my life and no one has ever let me in on the International Conspiracy.

            I don’t control a single bank or movie studio.

    • @dual_sport_dork
      link
      3329 days ago

      Diaper Don, the “Take away their guns and worry about the due process later” guy? That Donald Trump, right?

    • @Rakonat
      link
      English
      2229 days ago

      If memory serves, the Obama administration (the one far right was screaming for 8 years was going to take away all the guns) specifically looked at bump stocks and said they were legal.

      Trump freaked out at the Las Vegas shooting and pushed the ban ASAP.

      "Take away their guns and worry about the due process later”

      Donald Trump.

      • @barsquid
        link
        328 days ago

        Quoting that anti-constitution anti-gun president got me banned from a libertarian subreddit back in the day. I made it very clear I was against his position on blatantly violating the Fourth Amendment. I guess they were just extremely triggered by the quote?

        • Liz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          428 days ago

          There’s quite a lot of people out there who don’t actually have principles, they just have things they like and a team to root for.

    • @SupraMario
      link
      929 days ago

      Biden and the dems are not 2a friendly…but neither is any repub or trumpers. Both are true.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        328 days ago

        Rich people want to take away the ability of us poor commoners to resist their oppression and defend ourselves.

        • @SupraMario
          link
          3
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          Yup, we all fight eaxh other for table scraps while they eat the full meal. Our fight shouldn’t be us vs each other. It should be us vs them.

          Edit: who the fuck is down voting this lol

      • Flying Squid
        link
        -1029 days ago

        In that case, it’s weird that you’re telling that to me and not the Trump person who replied to me who suggested the opposite.

        Shouldn’t you be replying to them?

        Here, I’ll help: https://lemmy.world/comment/10631441

        Let me know when you’ve replied to them about it. (I won’t be holding my breath.)

        • @IzzyScissor
          link
          729 days ago

          Apparently the way Lemmy’s link creation works makes all first-level replies to your comment the same link AS your comment. So, in providing the link ‘to be helpful’, you only linked to your own comment. That’s not actually helpful and so it doesn’t come across in the best way.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            -428 days ago

            And yet they knew what I was linking to because they, like me, know how Lemmy works. And you know they knew because they were talking about that post.

            • @IzzyScissor
              link
              628 days ago

              Oof. Nevermind, then. Tried to show you why being an asshole about it might have backfired, but keep being jaded!

              • Flying Squid
                link
                028 days ago

                Just FYI, I was responding to a libertarian regular who thinks there should essentially be no gun regulations.

                Also, they’re a bigot.

                They won’t say it out loud…even though it’s a massive part of it. The youth are staring at a shit load of immigrants from hard right religious countries yelling at how they want to turn their country into a Shira law shit hole…but no it’s the social media…

                https://lemmy.world/comment/10611767

                You might possibly be backing the wrong horse.

                • @IzzyScissor
                  link
                  428 days ago

                  He can go kick rocks. I’m trying to help you.

                  From an outsider perspective, it looks like you told him to “go respond to this guy instead”, but linked the same comment that it was already responding to. It was confusing and made you look like the asshole in the situation, which I’m trying to help prevent in the future.

        • @SupraMario
          link
          129 days ago

          I read that as sarcasm for some reason

          • Flying Squid
            link
            -529 days ago

            I see you have not responded to them about how Trump is not friendly toward the Second Amendment. Looks like I was correct to not have held my breath.

            • @SupraMario
              link
              629 days ago

              Again, maybe I’m reading it wrong but I thought their comment was sarcasm. The orange turnip is not a 2a advocate.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                -729 days ago

                Maybe you should make sure they’re aware of it just in case you’re reading it wrong.

                I doubt you will though. Please, do prove me incorrect on that.

    • @YaDownWitCPP
      link
      English
      229 days ago

      And his appointed justices upheld the law.

      • @SupraMario
        link
        429 days ago

        Trump is not a friend of the 2nd. Anyone who thinks he is, is delusional. He was a big city NYC democrat for basically his entire life.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        129 days ago

        Ah, so that’s proof of Trump’s commitment to the Second Amendment- he violates it and then appoints justices to tell him so years later.

        I can see why you’re a gun-owning Trump fan.

  • Xanthrax
    link
    34
    edit-2
    29 days ago

    Bumpstocks are oldshit in comparison to “super safeties.” They push the trigger forward after you shoot. So you just squeeze, and you get quick individual trigger pulls at close to an automatic rate. It’s also easier to aim. Also, it’s a tiny piece you can 3d print. Also, I’m NOT linking it.

  • @GroundedGator
    link
    2729 days ago

    The ban on bump stocks was implemented using the Firearms’ Owners Protection Act of 1986. Which was signed into law by Reagan (funny how a failed assassination will change things).

    The text at issue is

    SEC. 109. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. (a) Section 58450)) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)) is amended by striking out “any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,” and inserting in lieu thereof “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,”

    IMO the majority in this decision is choosing to blatantly ignore the text of the act which was clearly chosen to future-proof for any advancement which would result in an effortless high rate of fire such as bump stock and super safety. Instead they are insisting that Congress must amend the law to include specific parts which of course is a losing battle as there will always be a new part that achieves an effortless high rate of fire.

    Now where one could argue that this ruling is correct is the accepted definition of a machinegun requires a single trigger action.

    26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)

    Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

    Personally I think the laws should be amended to define weapons and munitions by their result (high or continuous rate of fire) instead of their form or function. As it stands, someone could create a weapon that simply fires continuously but does not resemble a gun in any other way. Would such a weapon be a machinegun if it doesn’t even have a trigger?

    I think the dissenting opinion was more inline with the intent of FOPA.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      729 days ago

      They don’t need to ban specific parts, and in fact they shouldn’t. They could ban anything designed to accelerate rate of fire.

      I don’t think anyone is going to build a triggerless pseudo-machine gun. You could build one where, when you close the action, it fires until it’s out of ammo, but that’s not very controllable. See also: slamfire.

      • @GroundedGator
        link
        129 days ago

        They don’t need to ban specific parts, and in fact they shouldn’t. They could ban anything designed to accelerate rate of fire.

        That’s exactly what they should do. But SCOTUS seems to think that the bump stock cannot be banned because there is no law about bump stocks specifically.

    • BeardedBlaze
      link
      -328 days ago

      Bump stock still requires single function of the trigger. Might want to research how it actually works.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        528 days ago

        The entire logic of the Court’s opinion rests on the fact that bump stocks still use a seperate trigger action per shot. They just cause the trigger to automatically trigger against a stationary finger instead of the shooter needing to manually actuate their trigger finger.

        Is this an obtusely litteral reading of a law that was clearly intended to be more broadly interpreted? Probably. But it is a reading with a majority support on the court, so we are stuck with it until congress amends the law.

      • @GroundedGator
        link
        328 days ago

        Isn’t it that the trigger is squeezed once and the recoil causes the crock to bounce back which results in another trigger action? Even though there is only one action by the shooter, it would seem to be multiple trigger actions.

        • @SkyezOpen
          link
          328 days ago

          Correct. I mean, the thing was specifically designed to get high fire rates while technically keeping guns semi auto. That’s why legislation is an arms race. You ban certain things, gun manufacturers design around it.

      • Liz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        228 days ago

        I contend that what a bump stock does is make the trigger the entire front half of the gun and your finger is merely a passive mechanical part. Like, you could replace your finger with a bent fork glued onto the bump stock and it would still function as intended. Your finger becomes the auto-sear, the entire front half of the rifle is the trigger.

      • Liz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        228 days ago

        I contend that what a bump stock does is make the trigger the entire front half of the gun and your finger is merely a passive mechanical part. Like, you could replace your finger with a bent fork glued onto the bump stock and it would still function as intended. Your finger becomes the auto-sear, the entire front half of the rifle is the trigger.

  • /home/pineapplelover
    link
    fedilink
    1329 days ago

    I’m all for gun control, though, I feel like banning bump stocks won’t do much. Aren’t they incredibly easy to make?

    • @SupraMario
      link
      1429 days ago

      Yea, your belt loop makes a great one.

        • @SupraMario
          link
          528 days ago

          Yea, it’s from the hip, but it shows that you don’t need anything special to bump fire a gun.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            228 days ago

            Hell some guns will just kinda do it after awhile. M1 Garands do it with age relatively easily, mind you good luck with the accuracy automatic .308 was abandoned for a reason.

            • @SupraMario
              link
              228 days ago

              I don’t think slam fire with stuck firing pins counts lol

              One of my SKS’s decided to do that shit and that was scary as fuck for the 2 seconds it lasted.

        • @Death_Equity
          link
          328 days ago

          All you need for bumpfire to happen is hold the gun in such a manner that the recoil pushes the gun away from your finger and you pulling forward causes your finger to hit the trigger.

          People use beltloops as a way to keep your finger stationary. There are plenty of YouTube videos on how to do a bumpfire.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1328 days ago

    So can hunter biden buy a bump stock now? I am shocked that the NRA was not representing hunter.

    • @dual_sport_dork
      link
      728 days ago

      He probably could, but he can’t buy a gun to put on it so what he’s got is a funny shaped ineffective club.

  • @Sam_Bass
    link
    828 days ago

    Of course they do. If it destabilizes society snd increases mortality in any way, its on their agenda

  • @werefreeatlast
    link
    728 days ago

    I got a bunch of leaves and my neighbor too. He’s very rich. Can we please just burn all the leaves? The smoke will go east and there’s nothing there, just a hospital and a premature baby nursery. I assume this is okay by the supreme court. Oh and we want to do it naked and we want to pop our guns into the fire. You know, for 4th of July stuff.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      228 days ago

      I’m confused. Are you planning to burn your rich neighbor as well, or just the leaves? SCOTUS is probably not on board with the former, but you’d get plenty of support on lemmy.

      • @afraid_of_zombies
        link
        228 days ago

        I am against burning people alive. I know controversial take.

      • @werefreeatlast
        link
        128 days ago

        Well if you all wanna eat the rich I suppose that’s one way to do it. But they probably won’t like it and it will be difficult.

  • @afraid_of_zombies
    link
    528 days ago

    The Supreme Court could find this but couldn’t find abortion.

    Ok then.

    • @modus
      link
      227 days ago

      Because many of their rich friends own pre-86 MGs that would immediately lose thousands of dollars in value if they became less restricted. And because machine-gun ranges would lose their business model.

  • @Psythik
    link
    128 days ago

    For once the Supreme Court makes the right call. Broken clocks and whatnot.

    • @Pilferjinx
      link
      4
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      Is it the right call? What was the reason for the denial? Bump stocks are a work around to automatic laws isn’t it?

      • @skyspydude1
        link
        1128 days ago

        The problem is the laws regulating automatics are absolutely idiotic, and automatic weapons are 100% legal to own, just kind of expensive. Not like “need to be a multi-millionaire” expensive, but “can afford to pay cash for a late-model used car”.

        Like most of our half-assed regulations, it doesn’t actually do anything other than making it pay to play. We don’t actually want to do anything that might prevent cops and their buddies from having a monopoly on force, so basically every gun law is moot for them anyway, even if they’re buying them as private citizens.

        That’s one of the biggest concerns I have with the way we regulate firearms (among many other things) in the US, because they clearly aren’t made with a mindset of “X thing is bad for society as a whole, we need to do something about it”, it’s "X thing is totally fine if you’re in our special club, but the plebs are not allowed to have it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          628 days ago

          I was initially against the ruling, but you just convinced me. The broken clock really was right this time.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          Being “anti-gun” is almost universally actually just being “pro-gun-but-only-for-the-state” when you sit down and analyze it

          When the police and army disarm themselves, then we’ll talk

  • BuckFigotstheThird
    link
    English
    -9
    edit-2
    29 days ago

    I missed that part about bump stocks in the constitution.

    e: Could someone please point it out for me?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1429 days ago

      I suppose the tenth amendment:

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Unless prohibited by law, you have the power to do anything you like. As it probably says in the article, this needs to be law, not ATF opinion.

      • @derf82
        link
        English
        529 days ago

        That wasn’t remotely the basis of the ruling. It was essentially ruled that they don’t meet the definition of a machine gun in the law, which limits what the ATF can do. It was mentioned that congress can amend the law and ban them. They just haven’t.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          729 days ago

          Right. And because Congress hasn’t prohibited them, they’re fair game.

          I was talking more about the general principle of what is allowed versus prohibited than this specific case, though.

          • @derf82
            link
            English
            529 days ago

            My point is, they did not rule a ban unconstitutional, since they asked where it was in the constitution.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              329 days ago

              I read it as asking where in the Constitution there is a right to bump stocks. Did you read as asking where the ban is?

              • @derf82
                link
                English
                229 days ago

                And there is no constitutional right to bump stocks. They just ruled there is no current law against it. If there was a constitutional right to them, you couldn’t ban them even with a law.

                I didn’t say he was asking where the ban is.

      • @FireTower
        link
        329 days ago

        I think article 1 section 1 sums it up best

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -1929 days ago

    Trump is no longer the only president to actually do something about guns in the last 20 years.

    • @jordanlund
      link
      529 days ago

      Hey now, Obama “did something”… he expanded gun rights. :)

      https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

      "One of the laws allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks; that law took effect in February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan’s policy that required guns to be locked in glove compartments of trunks of cars that enter national parks.

      Another gun law signed by Obama allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, a move that reversed a measure put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

  • @secretlyaddictedtolinux
    link
    -2128 days ago

    the right to bear arms exists to protect people from tyrants

    the whole premise of this right is that we can’t trust the government to keep our liberty safe because they could become the tyrants. if one day some religious idiot comes into power who doesn’t want women learning math, you may end up glad that conservatives have made it easier for women to fight for their liberty by refusing to allow these rights to be eroded

    • @barsquid
      link
      1728 days ago

      Religious tyrants have gotten into power, they are forcing women into service as incubators. Nobody sane has taken up arms against the government. It is the “conservatives” who are fighting at the ballot box to erode our liberties and human rights.

      “Conservatives” want to elect an openly racist demagogue who already committed a putsch and is asking SCOTUS to hand him a Long Knife.

      LOL “conservatives” refusing to allow rights to be eroded. Yeah buddy, the women are going to force their way into math class holding the teacher at gunpoint.

        • @barsquid
          link
          028 days ago

          I agree. Hopefully people don’t vote for the “conservatives” who do keep making everything worse.

        • @barsquid
          link
          428 days ago

          Having legal authority over one’s own body autonomy is pretty foundational to gun rights, believe it or not.

        • @UnderpantsWeevil
          link
          1
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          Point a gun at a government official and see how fast they wither

    • @Jimmyeatsausage
      link
      1528 days ago

      I’ll remind my daughter next time she calls me having a panic attack during an active shooter lockdown that at least she still has the right to love who she wants make her own reproductive healthcare choices get IVF if she can’t have kids be open and honest about who she is

      • @secretlyaddictedtolinux
        link
        -228 days ago

        teach your daughter to use weapons, allow weapons in schools, and let her destroy anyone who attacks her.

        i am sorry religious idiots are taking away her rights. these idiots are luring in many supporters because they support the second amendment. liberals need to start being pro-gun and get these religious idiots out of power

        • cum
          link
          fedilink
          English
          127 days ago

          Are we in a civilized society, or a warzone?

    • @Furbag
      link
      1028 days ago

      the right to bear arms exists to protect people from tyrants

      This is a complete fiction, a true American mythology that exists in the modern day.

      The right to bear arms was more about homestead defense against indigenous natives and foreign invading armies than it was for any kind of poison pill for Americans to topple their own government if they woke up one day and decided they don’t like who’s in charge anymore. The very notion that the founders would set up a new system of governance but be okay with the idea of baking in gun ownership rights to ensure that the people will always be able to conduct a violent insurrection as the vehicle for regime change is absurd.

      Everybody likes to ignore the “well-regulated militia” part of that amendment, conveniently ignoring that a well regulated militia would answer to the state or the federal government, the very force of tyranny that they claim they need the guns to defend themselves against.

    • @jorp
      link
      728 days ago

      Conservatives would be the first to call anyone participating in the uprising unamerican and would be more likely to form reactionary militias supportive of the fascist government than to overthrow anything

      • @secretlyaddictedtolinux
        link
        -1
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        Hadis Najafi was a feminist. A world hero. I hope one day in a brave new feminist world, she has a holiday. I wish I had met her. I’d give anything to have met her. I don’t believe in an afterlife, but if heaven were real I would get to meet her. How can one person be so courageous?

        She fought without being armed because she was a hero and she couldn’t not fight. She had enough and said fuck it, I know I’m going to die and don’t care. Although she said “I like to think that when I think about this a few years later I’ll be pleased I joined the protest” I believe a part of her new she could die, I think this was something she said to comfort herself. Heroes fight even when the odds aren’t great. I wish I could become a good and courageous person like her.

        You think it’s bad now?

        Don’t be myopic. This is a woman who would have been a hero with our without weapons, but she could have done more if she had the right to bare arms.

        Yes, it matters and the NRA matters and feminism matters and the solution is making sure women have more and larger guns and better tactical training.

        • @jorp
          link
          128 days ago

          No the NRA doesn’t matter, right wing support of weapons doesn’t matter. The left wing support of weapons matters.

          • @secretlyaddictedtolinux
            link
            1
            edit-2
            28 days ago

            Is there such a thing? Is there a left wing organization battling for the rights of women to own any weapon she pleases? If so, please enlighten me on this.

            • @jorp
              link
              128 days ago

              Unsurprisingly the political organization whose power comes from private funding is the one backing right wing fascist bullshit. You’re not going to find a left wing organization with the same resources because it won’t have corporate political backing.

              Anarchists and other leftists (leftists, not liberals) are typically pro-gun and for the reasons you mention

              • @secretlyaddictedtolinux
                link
                128 days ago

                one day, in a world full of female scientists who rule the world, it may become irrelevant, an anachronistic right that no one even really uses

    • @Godnroc
      link
      English
      728 days ago

      I agree with the first part. It was supposed to be a check and balance to government power and oppression. It gives people the power to fight back against injustice.

      However, in the time of intercontinental missiles, planes, tanks, and remote operated drones, are a bunch of peasants with guns actually going to do anything if the government turned on its people? Does the “right to bear arms” not extend to other, non-gun weapons?