Law The Supreme Court overturns ruling which allows people to own bump stocks

[BFoe]

If we're really after protecting people from those types of abusers, maybe they shouldn't be misdemeanors, but instead become felonies. We also release violent criminals with multiple felonies on bail where many continue to commit crimes. Or a minor with a gun-related charge is released to their parents to keep doing what they were charged with.

The folks you mentioned aren't good for the collective, if that's something you're truly concerned with.

Yes, the collective is something I’m truly concerned with.
And yes, people like this may not be good for the collective.
But we also can’t just make everything like this a felony, or take away the ability to make plea deals when appropriate, or whatever. I think more nuanced gun laws make more sense than a blanket “all harassment and all stalking is a felony” type laws.

oncede this point and agree that various circumstances may create special situations that can't be painted with my broad brush.

Individuals make up the collective do they not? A collective is a group of people who share similar views right? I'm not even touching anything on COVID. This discussion doesn't need that gas.

Yes, individuals make up the collective. Maybe a less controversial example would be: I, BFoe, have no kids. So why do my taxes go toward education? Why do I pay to build roads I’ll probably never drive on?
I don’t mind those things because of the net gain for all of us. That doesn’t mean we can’t improve our education or whatever, we can and should. In fact, I work for a company that aims to improve education; I don’t do it so my kids can benefit, but so we can all benefit (hopefully) from a more educated society.

It’s trying to strike that balance of: what sacrifices is it reasonable for an individual to make in order for a societal net gain.

Emotion-based pleas without any thought given to facts and what causes the most harm. Along with a complete disregard for anything not inline with a complete ban of this or that scary looking firearm.

This still seems a little vague to me. But we present all sorts of ideas that aren’t total bans and still get pushback. For example, gun registries, red flag laws, waiting periods…all sorts of things. We usually don’t make much headway there either.

And of course, we’re not trying to ban certain things because they “look scary”—yes, I’m fully aware that if I talk about the role of AR-15s in recent mass shootings, you’ll come back and say “but so many more people are killed with handguns.” But of course Washington DC famously has their handgun ban struck down in Heller, in what would unfortunately be the first in a whole series of SCOTUS decisions which manage to get nearly everything incorrect about the 2A.
So the issue with handguns has to be dealt with differently—although with each measure, the SCOTUS seems to pull some reason out of their ass why it’s supposedly not permissible. It’s getting more and more difficult to know what the limitations are or aren’t regarding the 2A.

 

[My Spot]

It's not something I'd really care to roll the dice on. To me, gun control is about enabling violent criminals and depriving the liberty of law-abiding citizens from exercising an explicitly enumerated constitutional right. It's about stripping the legal authority and means of people from protecting their person, family, and property. It is utterly intolerable, indefensible, and unconscionable on every conceivable level. That's why I compromise on absolutely nothing. As the FPC likes to say: No, Fuck You.

I mean @BFoe is a perfect example. "Another horrible SCOTUS decision. I'm not surprised." His mind was already made up before he even knew anything about the case based on him being Helen Lovejoy when it comes to guns.
I thought you lived in one of the Dakotas or Wyoming?

 

[My Spot]

Yes, the collective is something I’m truly concerned with.
And yes, people like this may not be good for the collective.
But we also can’t just make everything like this a felony, or take away the ability to make plea deals when appropriate, or whatever. I think more nuanced gun laws make more sense than a blanket “all harassment and all stalking is a felony” type laws.





Yes, individuals make up the collective. Maybe a less controversial example would be: I, BFoe, have no kids. So why do my taxes go toward education? Why do I pay to build roads I’ll probably never drive on?
I don’t mind those things because of the net gain for all of us. That doesn’t mean we can’t improve our education or whatever, we can and should. In fact, I work for a company that aims to improve education; I don’t do it so my kids can benefit, but so we can all benefit (hopefully) from a more educated society.

It’s trying to strike that balance of: what sacrifices is it reasonable for an individual to make in order for a societal net gain.


This still seems a little vague to me. But we present all sorts of ideas that aren’t total bans and still get pushback. For example, gun registries, red flag laws, waiting periods…all sorts of things. We usually don’t make much headway there either.

And of course, we’re not trying to ban certain things because they “look scary”—yes, I’m fully aware that if I talk about the role of AR-15s in recent mass shootings, you’ll come back and say “but so many more people are killed with handguns.” But of course Washington DC famously has their handgun ban struck down in Heller, in what would unfortunately be the first in a whole series of SCOTUS decisions which manage to get nearly everything incorrect about the 2A.
So the issue with handguns has to be dealt with differently—although with each measure, the SCOTUS seems to pull some reason out of their ass why it’s supposedly not permissible. It’s getting more and more difficult to know what the limitations are or aren’t regarding the 2A.

Maybe there wouldn't be so much pushback if y'all didn't support "common sense" (lol) legislation that would make tens of millions of Americans overnight felons?

 

[Lucas1980]

And everyone's moaning about illegal immigration, lol. And I live on the border of The Mojave in a state which used to be Mexico not too long ago.

Well Illegal Immigration is a threat to our nation so its something yes the majority of people are moaning about and the majority of people are now for mass deportations as well.

 

[spamking]

When I eventually get round to buying a firearm I will have no hesitation using it if someone breaks into my house.

And I suspect you'll want the firearm that gives you the biggest advantage possible. In some situations that might be an AR-style rifle.

 

[Lucas1980]

Maybe there wouldn't be so much pushback if y'all didn't support "common sense" (lol) legislation that would make tens of millions of Americans overnight felons?

Doesn't sound like that would equate to much "Common sense" at all. Its funny that the same people that want all weapons Registered are fine with millions of Un-Registered Illegals invading our country. It really doesn't sound like the actual safety of the citizens is their end goal.

 

[spamking]

Fuck Your Constitution,

I’m Native American…

If you show me your last test scores on the subject matter then I will have to take thought into my pick. But for now I will take @fingercuffs %100 Constitutional Essay over Your Hobby…

What does this even mean?

 

[BFoe]

I mean @BFoe is a perfect example. "Another horrible SCOTUS decision. I'm not surprised." His mind was already made up before he even knew anything about the case based on him being Helen Lovejoy when it comes to guns.
I thought you lived in one of the Dakotas or Wyoming?

My mind pretty clearly wasn’t made up, since I changed it
I can admit I was a bit quick to post, no biggie. I reviewed the reason for the decision, and I agree. Now if Congress does their job, passes a new bill, and it ends up getting struck down at SCOTUS again it will be a different story.

SCOTUS has been so wrong about the 2A in so many ways in the past 15 years, they don’t get much leeway with me.

Maybe there wouldn't be so much pushback if y'all didn't support "common sense" (lol) legislation that would make tens of millions of Americans overnight felons?

Well, that’s not a thing I’ve ever done, so there’s that.

But I also mentioned things like red flag laws, registries, waiting periods and such, none of which “make millions of Americans felons overnight.”

You are actually the perfect example of a poster that argues this issue with emotion rather than facts, and in fact are doing that here.

From what I can tell, you know quite a bit about firearms.
You seem to know almost nothing about the Constitution or its history. It’s for that reason that discussions on this topic between you and I will never go anywhere.

 

[My Spot]

My mind pretty clearly wasn’t made up, since I changed it
I can admit I was a bit quick to post, no biggie. I reviewed the reason for the decision, and I agree. Now if Congress does their job, passes a new bill, and it ends up getting struck down at SCOTUS again it will be a different story.

SCOTUS has been so wrong about the 2A in so many ways in the past 15 years, they don’t get much leeway with me.


Well, that’s not a thing I’ve ever done, so there’s that.

But I also mentioned things like red flag laws, registries, waiting periods and such, none of which “make millions of Americans felons overnight.”

You are actually the perfect example of a poster that argues this issue with emotion rather than facts, and in fact are doing that here.

From what I can tell, you know quite a bit about firearms.
You seem to know almost nothing about the Constitution or its history. It’s for that reason that discussions on this topic between you and I will never go anywhere.

"I don't know anything about this case but it's yet another bad SCOTUS decision. Not surprised."
You support an AWB with no grandfather clause. Hope this helps, Helen!

 

[Deorum]

I mean @BFoe is a perfect example. "Another horrible SCOTUS decision. I'm not surprised." His mind was already made up before he even knew anything about the case based on him being Helen Lovejoy when it comes to guns.

I got a lot of love and respect for @BFoe. We just vehemently disagree on the 2A, and I'd rather not fight with him.

I thought you lived in one of the Dakotas or Wyoming?

I was born and raised in NoDak, live and work in Arizona, love to travel and visit Wyoming. I adore all three states for various reasons and have a vested interest in them. Most of my extended fam is still in the Dakotas and Wyo, but more of my own life has been spent in AZ at this point. We moved when I was a teenager, and my dad turned over the family farming operations to my uncles.

 

[spamking]

Yes, the collective is something I’m truly concerned with.
And yes, people like this may not be good for the collective.
But we also can’t just make everything like this a felony, or take away the ability to make plea deals when appropriate, or whatever. I think more nuanced gun laws make more sense than a blanket “all harassment and all stalking is a felony” type laws.

I'd counter this by saying we have enough gun laws as it is and don't need more of them either.

Yes, individuals make up the collective. Maybe a less controversial example would be: I, BFoe, have no kids. So why do my taxes go toward education? Why do I pay to build roads I’ll probably never drive on?
I don’t mind those things because of the net gain for all of us. That doesn’t mean we can’t improve our education or whatever, we can and should. In fact, I work for a company that aims to improve education; I don’t do it so my kids can benefit, but so we can all benefit (hopefully) from a more educated society.

It’s trying to strike that balance of: what sacrifices is it reasonable for an individual to make in order for a societal net gain.

This still seems a little vague to me. But we present all sorts of ideas that aren’t total bans and still get pushback. For example, gun registries, red flag laws, waiting periods…all sorts of things. We usually don’t make much headway there either.

I know in the case of guns it seems that way or is at least presented in that manner, but whenever 2A folks make a proposal it's immediately met with disdain and the "think of the children" crowd telling us how horrible we are that we won't give in and give up something to make them feel better.

If be all sorts of ideas you mean expecting 2A folks to give up just one more thing, or take another hit without due process . . . nope, we won't make any headway there.

And of course, we’re not trying to ban certain things because they “look scary”—yes, I’m fully aware that if I talk about the role of AR-15s in recent mass shootings, you’ll come back and say “but so many more people are killed with handguns.” But of course Washington DC famously has their handgun ban struck down in Heller, in what would unfortunately be the first in a whole series of SCOTUS decisions which manage to get nearly everything incorrect about the 2A.
So the issue with handguns has to be dealt with differently—

Yet proposed bans have historically attack rifles for exactly that reason. For a specific feature they might have or how they accept a magazine. My first response would have nothing to do with handguns.

although with each measure, the SCOTUS seems to pull some reason out of their ass why it’s supposedly not permissible. It’s getting more and more difficult to know what the limitations are or aren’t regarding the 2A.

And this is the crux of the matter . . . you're so hellbent on proclaiming the SCOTUS is wrong based on previous SCOTUS rulings you can't see straight.

 

[SammyPops]

So does this turn a semiauto into a full auto?

 

[My Spot]

So does this turn a semiauto into a full auto?

No.

 

[My Spot]

Meanwhile you've got fine upstanding citizens in cities all over the country converting Glocks to full auto (breaking at least three federal felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison each).

 

[SammyPops]

No.

So then whats the issue?

Is this one of those fucked up gun control people not understanding guns issue?

 

[My Spot]

So then whats the issue?

Is this one of those fucked up gun control people not understanding guns issue?

Pretty much. And Orange SCOTUS bad.

 

[oldshadow]

I've said multiple times assault style, you keep omitting that. My apologies for not being online at your beck and call 24x7. And multiple times I've said that that technology didn't exist when the 2A was created. Unless you're a terrible shit shot you don't need something like this to protect your family or property. If you need something like this I suggest you take a firearm course. The 2A is awesome and when we buy a firearm I would have no hesitation using it. It does make me laugh that The Mandarin Molester isn't allowed one and isn't allowed to visit 30 odd countries as a convicted felon when we might give him back the nuclear codes and he could be president from Rikers.

You want to ban it so you have to define it.

What does technology have to do with rights. Like the 1st has nothing to do with cable or TV or the internet not being invented when it was written.

I've been to all kinds of firearm training both long gun and pistol including advanced training. I'm proficient with both. I have many rifles, shotguns and pistols including an AR style. I don't have to need any of them per the 2nd amendment. However all have places they tend to serve me best. The AR is good for coyotes and not bad for pigs. It's not my go to for home defense but in a very rare situation it would be the best weapon.

You live in California now, right. So the best you can do if you can get one is a home for defense and it would be rare if you could legally use it even in your own home because California is a you must run state.

As far as Trump I don't give a shit if he can't own a gun he can deal with that.

As big a shit as he is he is still better then Biden and the most of the democrats.

PS I've had a carry permit before I knew you. It was locked in the truck when we visited. I don't carry as a guest in a home unless I know they are fine with it.

 

[My Spot]

You want to ban it so you have to define it.

She just won't do it for some reason.

 

[BFoe]

"I don't know anything about this case but it's yet another bad SCOTUS decision. Not surprised." lol
You support an AWB with no grandfather clause. Hope this helps, Helen!

It was just as helpful as every other post you’ve ever made, which is to say, not helpful at all.

I’ve never said any such thing about supporting a blanket ban without a grandfather clause or some other potential exception such that millions of Americans would “become felons overnight.” Hope that helps!

 

[My Spot]

It was just as helpful as every other post you’ve ever made, which is to say, not helpful at all.

I’ve never said any such thing about supporting a blanket ban without a grandfather clause or some other potential exception such that millions of Americans would “become felons overnight.” Hope that helps!

You're voting for politicians who want that. Hope this helps!
The onus is on y'all to explain what an "assault weapon" is.