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

[oldshadow]

Bro, you aren't fooling anybody. You can get on YouTube and watch the difference between a semi auto and a semi auto with a bump stock equipped. The difference is staggering.

As shown you can fire extremely fast with a sim auto with no bump.

Since you know nothing about firearms a automatic or "machine gun" fires more then once on each trigger pull. A bump unlike a switch does not convert the weapon to be able to do that.

 

[I Am Legion]

Ok, so this is gonna get me on a little soapbox rant. It’s not directed at you personally, and I’ll try not to be too long winded.
—But this 10th Amendment theory I see so often is completely wrong.

Quick history: Amongst our Founding Fathers, the idea of a Bill of Rights wasn’t universally supported, mainly because it was impossible to list out every single right the People had. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged this but said, “let’s at least protect what we can.”
—But another Founding Father named James Wilson disagreed. He worried that some time in the future, people would come along and see the Bill of Rights and believe those were the only rights the People had. He feared that tyrannical leaders would start to attack any right that wasn’t expressly listed.

The compromise was the 9th Amendment—not the 10th. It reads:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It’s quite clear: the fact that certain rights aren’t listed does not mean they don’t exist, nor can those rights be disparaged just because they aren’t listed. The right to travel freely around the US, the right to get married, or the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in criminal court, are examples of this.

—But these days, you won’t hear much from the Right about the 9th. Instead they quote the 10th (and they usually leave out the last few words):

“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.”

So this involves regulatory powers of the State: e.g., what the legal drinking age will be, regulations on hunting, fishing, or driver’s licenses, things like that.

The issue of abortion is one of personal liberty, not one of state power. The 10th Amendment does not grant states the ability to say, for example, “Sorry miss, we understand that you have a molar pregnancy, and this could turn cancerous and kill you, but we have moral qualms with the procedure to treat you so we’ve decided you can’t get it. Best of luck!” That is a severe infringement on a person’s rights, and a gross example of government overreach.

Nor could the state pass a law making it illegal to travel to another state for something that’s legal in that state.

Right wing lawyers, judges, and politicians are pushing the idea that if you think you have a certain right, you’d better be able to point right to it in the Constitution. And if you can’t, then it’s not a right you have, it’s a power that the state has over you.
And that is very, very, very wrong. And dangerous.

Abortion is a WAY more complex issue than Guns. And you are pointing the finger constantly at the right while ignoring the Left does overreach bullshit ALL the time. The left ignores the fact that some rights that negatively compromise another's rights should be addressed. Abortion at some point concerns more than 1 person. You want to argue for when that happens, be my guest, BUT IT DOES happen. These idiots denying that there is a living being in that womb are just ignoring science and biology.
As for the Bump stocks, there is so much wrong information in this thread it is staggering. They DO NOT make a gun automatic. I am actually FOR Gun control in many ways. But a ban on them does nothing. If someone is going to shoot up a crowd of people, denying them a Bump stock makes no difference. They will wither make one themselves, get one illegally, or make their gun fully automatic with a few simple parts. To act like this is devastating is just not honest.

 

[oldshadow]

How's it not dramatic? Look at the difference?

You are going from 45 rounds per minute to over 400.

I'm not even commenting on whether it should be legal or not.

I'm a gun owner myself, but the 2A crowd acting like this is a good thing is insane. Only reason you'd want a bump stock is to mow down a crowd of people or to walk outside and burn a shit ton of money firing rounds at a hillside lol.

You aren't gonna use a bump stock in any real sort of self defense scenario.

The way it was outlaw is incorrect legally. It did not convert it to fully auto. If they want to outlaw them then it needs to go through congress and a law made to cover them.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Ok, so this is gonna get me on a little soapbox rant. It’s not directed at you personally, and I’ll try not to be too long winded.
—But this 10th Amendment theory I see so often is completely wrong.

Quick history: Amongst our Founding Fathers, the idea of a Bill of Rights wasn’t universally supported, mainly because it was impossible to list out every single right the People had. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged this but said, “let’s at least protect what we can.”
—But another Founding Father named James Wilson disagreed. He worried that some time in the future, people would come along and see the Bill of Rights and believe those were the only rights the People had. He feared that tyrannical leaders would start to attack any right that wasn’t expressly listed.

The compromise was the 9th Amendment—not the 10th. It reads:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It’s quite clear: the fact that certain rights aren’t listed does not mean they don’t exist, nor can those rights be disparaged just because they aren’t listed. The right to travel freely around the US, the right to get married, or the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in criminal court, are examples of this.

—But these days, you won’t hear much from the Right about the 9th. Instead they quote the 10th (and they usually leave out the last few words):

“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.”

So this involves regulatory powers of the State: e.g., what the legal drinking age will be, regulations on hunting, fishing, or driver’s licenses, things like that.

The issue of abortion is one of personal liberty, not one of state power. The 10th Amendment does not grant states the ability to say, for example, “Sorry miss, we understand that you have a molar pregnancy, and this could turn cancerous and kill you, but we have moral qualms with the procedure to treat you so we’ve decided you can’t get it. Best of luck!” That is a severe infringement on a person’s rights, and a gross example of government overreach.

Nor could the state pass a law making it illegal to travel to another state for something that’s legal in that state.

Right wing lawyers, judges, and politicians are pushing the idea that if you think you have a certain right, you’d better be able to point right to it in the Constitution. And if you can’t, then it’s not a right you have, it’s a power that the state has over you.
And that is very, very, very wrong. And dangerous.

Extremely well said.

 

[oldshadow]

Ok, so this is gonna get me on a little soapbox rant. It’s not directed at you personally, and I’ll try not to be too long winded.
—But this 10th Amendment theory I see so often is completely wrong.

Quick history: Amongst our Founding Fathers, the idea of a Bill of Rights wasn’t universally supported, mainly because it was impossible to list out every single right the People had. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged this but said, “let’s at least protect what we can.”
—But another Founding Father named James Wilson disagreed. He worried that some time in the future, people would come along and see the Bill of Rights and believe those were the only rights the People had. He feared that tyrannical leaders would start to attack any right that wasn’t expressly listed.

The compromise was the 9th Amendment—not the 10th. It reads:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It’s quite clear: the fact that certain rights aren’t listed does not mean they don’t exist, nor can those rights be disparaged just because they aren’t listed. The right to travel freely around the US, the right to get married, or the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in criminal court, are examples of this.

—But these days, you won’t hear much from the Right about the 9th. Instead they quote the 10th (and they usually leave out the last few words):

“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.”

So this involves regulatory powers of the State: e.g., what the legal drinking age will be, regulations on hunting, fishing, or driver’s licenses, things like that.

The issue of abortion is one of personal liberty, not one of state power. The 10th Amendment does not grant states the ability to say, for example, “Sorry miss, we understand that you have a molar pregnancy, and this could turn cancerous and kill you, but we have moral qualms with the procedure to treat you so we’ve decided you can’t get it. Best of luck!” That is a severe infringement on a person’s rights, and a gross example of government overreach.

Nor could the state pass a law making it illegal to travel to another state for something that’s legal in that state.

Right wing lawyers, judges, and politicians are pushing the idea that if you think you have a certain right, you’d better be able to point right to it in the Constitution. And if you can’t, then it’s not a right you have, it’s a power that the state has over you.
And that is very, very, very wrong. And dangerous.

I agree with your take on this however if the states passes restrictions on abortion then to get it overturned you have show where the law is unconstitutional.

The state legislation has the right to make most any law they want and the judicial branch has the right to overturn that law if they believe its unconstitutional which then can be fought up the the Supreme Court which has the final say.

 

[spamking]

How's it not dramatic? Look at the difference?

You are going from 45 rounds per minute to over 400.

I'm not even commenting on whether it should be legal or not.

The entire conversation about it is dramatic. People are focusing on that instead of the actual legal argument/discussion that got us to this point. Drama and emotion is all the anti-2A folks have. Why play into that at all?

I'm a gun owner myself,

but the 2A crowd acting like this is a good thing is insane.

This just shows you haven't read through any actual details, but have just hopped on the emotional bandwagon.

Only reason you'd want a bump stock is to mow down a crowd of people or to walk outside and burn a shit ton of money firing rounds at a hillside lol.

And what, you think because that's how you see nobody should be allowed to buy one?

You aren't gonna use a bump stock in any real sort of self defense scenario.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

The way it was outlaw is incorrect legally. It did not convert it to fully auto. If they want to outlaw them then it needs to through congress and a law made to cover them.

I do not necessarily disagree with it being banned in an incorrect manner.

What I take issue with is the fact that 400+ rounds per minute that spamking acted like going from no bump stock to a bump stock on something like an AR-15 isn't a drastic difference. It clearly is. A bump stock is the equivalent of a cheat code to circumvent the law against fully automatic weapons. It's definitely a loophole that needs to be closed. Even the lunatics getting paid by the NRA in the Trump admin recognized this lol.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

[

As shown you can fire extremely fast with a sim auto with no bump.

Since you know nothing about firearms a automatic or "machine gun" fires more then once on each trigger pull. A bump unlike a switch does not convert the weapon to be able to do that.

I know what a bump stock does lol

 

[Natural Order]

Ok, so this is gonna get me on a little soapbox rant. It’s not directed at you personally, and I’ll try not to be too long winded.
—But this 10th Amendment theory I see so often is completely wrong.

Quick history: Amongst our Founding Fathers, the idea of a Bill of Rights wasn’t universally supported, mainly because it was impossible to list out every single right the People had. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged this but said, “let’s at least protect what we can.”
—But another Founding Father named James Wilson disagreed. He worried that some time in the future, people would come along and see the Bill of Rights and believe those were the only rights the People had. He feared that tyrannical leaders would start to attack any right that wasn’t expressly listed.

The compromise was the 9th Amendment—not the 10th. It reads:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It’s quite clear: the fact that certain rights aren’t listed does not mean they don’t exist, nor can those rights be disparaged just because they aren’t listed. The right to travel freely around the US, the right to get married, or the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in criminal court, are examples of this.

—But these days, you won’t hear much from the Right about the 9th. Instead they quote the 10th (and they usually leave out the last few words):

“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.”

So this involves regulatory powers of the State: e.g., what the legal drinking age will be, regulations on hunting, fishing, or driver’s licenses, things like that.

The issue of abortion is one of personal liberty, not one of state power. The 10th Amendment does not grant states the ability to say, for example, “Sorry miss, we understand that you have a molar pregnancy, and this could turn cancerous and kill you, but we have moral qualms with the procedure to treat you so we’ve decided you can’t get it. Best of luck!” That is a severe infringement on a person’s rights, and a gross example of government overreach.

Nor could the state pass a law making it illegal to travel to another state for something that’s legal in that state.

Right wing lawyers, judges, and politicians are pushing the idea that if you think you have a certain right, you’d better be able to point right to it in the Constitution. And if you can’t, then it’s not a right you have, it’s a power that the state has over you.
And that is very, very, very wrong. And dangerous.

It would be personal liberty if only one life was involved.

 

[BFoe]

It would be personal liberty if only one life was involved.

No, not one life, one person.
There is nothing textually or historically to indicate that the fetus has constitutional personhood—and I believe SCOTUS knows this quite well, which is is why they sidestepped the entire issue in Dobbs. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a court overturn a precedent without dealing with its central holdings…but first time for everything with these fine judges.

 

[spamking]

I do not necessarily disagree with it being banned in an incorrect manner.

What I take issue with is the fact that 400+ rounds per minute that spamking acted like going from no bump stock to a bump stock on something like an AR-15 isn't a drastic difference. It clearly is. A bump stock is the equivalent of a cheat code to circumvent the law against fully automatic weapons. It's definitely a loophole that needs to be closed. Even the lunatics getting paid by the NRA in the Trump admin recognized this lol.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Hilarious that you think the belt loop shit is the equivalent to aiming down a sight with a bump stock. If anything the belt loop shit is a pretty good argument for why these guns need to be banned in the first place lol.

 

[shockaholic12]

There are multiple lines that have been drawn on multiple occasions with federal laws that are enforced by the ATF, most notably:

* National Firearms Act of 1934
* Gun Control Act of 1968
* Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986

The intent was clear, however.

Why stop highlighting right before the “well-regulated part?

Over a thousand gun laws of every variety were passed successfully before the 1932 act. Is that intending to highly regulate? Sounds like it.

 

[Scerpi]

No, not one life, one person.
There is nothing textually or historically to indicate that the fetus has constitutional personhood—and I believe SCOTUS knows this quite well, which is is why they sidestepped the entire issue in Dobbs. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a court overturn a precedent without dealing with its central holdings…but first time for everything with these fine judges.

?? What? Are suggesting a fetus isn't a person? And that they magically become a person when they slide out of a vagina?

Why is it that it's considered a double murder if you kill a pregnant woman.... but it's ok to drag out and kill a fetus in the third trimester.

I'm not 100% pro-choice/life... this this is a retarded argument that guarantees conservatives will 100% reject.

I'm not a religious conservative, so I don't have those hang ups about abortion. Especially early term abortions.

I believe there is an approximate duration where a baby can survive most unassisted being born.... I think somewhere in the mid 20 weeks. That should be cut off... The idea that a potentially healthy fetus/baby has to be killed to perform abortion in late terms is complete abhorrent. Its disgusting.

The hard religious republicans kill the entire conservative movement with total abortion bans because Democrats can always circle back to the abortion issue... Even if their other policies completely suck. I think the Abortion issue killed Republicans in the mid-terms.

And to think Bump Stocks even have a minute effect on violent crime and gun murders is ridiculous. Its a distraction from what's really going on. By far the highest demographic of murders are young black men killing each other with handguns.... No one on the left wants to address this. Why?

 

[My Spot]

As shown you can fire extremely fast with a sim auto with no bump.

Since you know nothing about firearms a automatic or "machine gun" fires more then once on each trigger pull. A bump unlike a switch does not convert the weapon to be able to do that.

He wants certain guns banned based on how scary they look.

 

[oldshadow]

[

I know what a bump stock does lol

Then you know it takes practice and even then is very unreliable. It's just spray which can also be done other ways including thumb and belt loop.

I have shot a bump and didn't like it as far as reliability.

 

[Natural Order]

No, not one life, one person.
There is nothing textually or historically to indicate that the fetus has constitutional personhood—and I believe SCOTUS knows this quite well, which is is why they sidestepped the entire issue in Dobbs. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a court overturn a precedent without dealing with its central holdings…but first time for everything with these fine judges.

I suppose it would be prudent to get that defined. Back when the document was made, most people weren’t killing their fetuses. Also note that im on your side about the rape, deformity and woman’s health side of abortions. This should clearly be an option in these circumstances. Unfortunately they make up about 15% of abortions. Did you have a plan for the other 85% or do we just accept that depraved shit with the real cases?

 

[Prefect]

This is not a popularity contest. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution to ban a bump stock or anything eluding to it. If we actually dig into the Federalist Papers and the 2nd Amendment, the intent is that Americans have access to the same standard issue firearms as the infantryman and we do not have that. When I hear a Left Cult Clown whine about it... I just see an ignorant and/or un-American fool.

Note... a bump stock gets you nowhere near the automatic capabilities of our military. I wouldn't recommend one, but I wouldn't dog someone that wanted one.

Can we stop with this nonsense that the Constitution is infallible? Even the founders wrote in provisions so it could be modified as needed. Back when it was written, you could have slaves, beat and rape women, challenge people to duels, kill Indians for bounty, etc. The dumbest fucking argument in the world is the idea that the founding fathers somehow knew what was best for all time.

 

[Lucas1980]

I suppose it would be prudent to get that defined. Back when the document was made, most people weren’t killing their fetuses. Also note that im on your side about the rape, deformity and woman’s health side of abortions. This should clearly be an option in these circumstances. Unfortunately they make up about 15% of abortions. Did you have a plan for the other 85% or do we just accept that depraved shit with the real cases?

It is funny how they love to leave out the other 90 percent of women who get abortions as basically a form of birth control and bring up the rarest instances....Its extremely dishonest and transparent that they have a narrative.

 

[spamking]

Hilarious that you think the belt loop shit is the equivalent to aiming down a sight with a bump stock. If anything the belt loop shit is a pretty good argument for why these guns need to be banned in the first place lol.

Is it as hilarious as you thinking the bump stock = making someone a bump-firing sniper? Bump firing is bump firing. The rate of fire and accuracy is based on the shooter.

Are you really a "gun owner" advocating for banning scary-looking semi-automatic rifles?