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

[Blayt7hh]

Full auto is overrated.. heck from the mid 1980s up and until around 2000, the standard military m16 (m16a2) didn't even have full auto.

M4s didn’t either until around 2015. They had 3round burst before that

 

[fingercuffs]

I was fucking with people and you jumped right on it. You and I disagree on much but I don't think your too bad as far as the 2nd goes. So in this case it's catch and release because the bait wasn't meant for you.

Who was it meant for? You're styling out trolling now?

 

[shockaholic12]

So your hissy fit in the Hunter Biden thread definitely isn't off to a good start here lol.
And everyone already knows you're on record as wanting to ban certain guns based on how scary they look.

Some of your sentences aren’t even coherent.

 

[oldshadow]

D

 

[spamking]

And what I am saying is you're fine with some restrictions on guns. Just like every other sane person in America.

You do understand the difference though don't you?

 

[spamking]

What if they have a mental illness that make it very risky to own a firearm? They may not have committed any crime, but we still wouldn’t want them to have a gun. Or to Hunter Biden’s issue, what about drug users? What about convicted stalkers, those convicted of domestic abuse, that have served their sentences? There’s plenty of examples I can think of in which we might not want someone to own a firearm, but there’s nothing specific you can lock them up for.

If they're too dangerous to own a firearm they're too dangerous to freely live among us . . . if they've served their time and have been released then restoration of rights can be considered.

If you're going to advocate for stopping drug users from owning a firearm you should probably do the same for alcoholics.

 

[spamking]

What "boogeyman" lmao? A boogeyman is made up.

Bump stocks allow you to turn a gun shooting 45 rounds per minute into a gun that is shooting 400 fucking rounds a minute.

You act like you aren't a gun nut. Nobody, and I repeat absofuckinglutely nobody, is putting a bump stock on a semi-automatic rifle and shooting off 400+ rounds per minute unless they are gun nut you ding dong. There's no reason to fucking do it other than to compensate for you tiny pee pee and to waste shit ton of money on ammo...or to mow down a crowd of innocent people.

Also, LOL at the "these young black men"....wtf? You said it yourself, that shit is already illegal you racist clown. If you were consistent, you'd be totally cool with the modified Glocks wouldn't you? Shall not be infringed (unless you are the wrong skin color).

People who want bump stocks and illegal switches on their Glocks:

A) Criminals

B) Gun Nuts who compensate for their tiny dicks

C) Mass murders

Wow . . . you really can't read. Thanks for putting words in my mouth and responding to things I didn't say. I never said the 2A only applied to people of a certain color you ignorant tool. And I am totally cool with modified Glocks.

Maybe you need to read this study . . . it might help with your issues.

 

[spamking]

You understand the difference between a firearm that unleashes multiple bullets per second compared to a regular handgun, right? In your lifetime in which situation have you needed such a weapon?

This is about needs now?

 

[spamking]

Nobody walks free unless they can be trusted with a gun. This isn't hard. I'm guessing children are exempt. And the mentally handicapped. Not sure about meth heads or crack heads like Hunter. I say lock them up just to be safe. You know, so we can all have guns for protection (which we won't even need since everyone dangerous is in jail).

 

[spamking]

Again, you clearly have reading comprehension problems.

There is a lot of that going on in this thread.

 

[spamking]

Why even talk to the others about guns? I genuinely see no point whatsoever in speaking with the others on this topic and will not engage. I'm gonna enjoy my 2A rights and stay living in a constitutional carry state while supporting legislation and organizations that maximize liberty. Alright.

I probably need to learn to do this more often . . .

 

[BFoe]

If they're too dangerous to own a firearm they're too dangerous to freely live among us . . . if they've served their time and have been released then restoration of rights can be considered.

If you're going to advocate for stopping drug users from owning a firearm you should probably do the same for alcoholics.

Drug users are prohibited from owning firearms, as you well know.

Your argument just doesn’t make any sense. You can have people who are convicted of harassment or stalking offenses which are not felonies, so there are no “restoration of rights” to be considered—yet probably they shouldn’t be able to own a firearm.

Schizophrenics who are under treatment would be another. They may be stable when going to therapy and taking meds, haven’t committed crimes, don’t need to be locked up, but perhaps shouldn’t own a firearm.
Your argument is overly broad.

 

[BFoe]

Why even talk to the others about guns? I genuinely see no point whatsoever in speaking with the others on this topic and will not engage. I'm gonna enjoy my 2A rights and stay living in a constitutional carry state while supporting legislation and organizations that maximize liberty. Alright.

You could say that about any issue.
We talk about guns for the same reason we talk about immigration, LGBTQ rights, abortion, taxes, inflation, the military, foreign policy, or anything else: because they are major issues that affect the country, and we are a country that elects people to represent us. Discourse is how one persuades someone else to their viewpoint, so that the country can go in one direction or another.

By your logic we shouldn’t discuss these things at all.

 

[BFoe]

This is about needs now?

Always has been.
There was a great Ken Burns speech I saw recently where he describes history and politics as “parsing together the differences between the individual and the collective: the difference between “what I want” and “what we need.”

And I thought it was a perfect way to describe it. Both are important. Left wingers like me almost always view things in the context of the collective—what we need. Conservatives almost always view it in the individual context—what I want.

 

[spamking]

Drug users are prohibited from owning firearms, as you well know.

Your argument just doesn’t make any sense. You can have people who are convicted of harassment or stalking offenses which are not felonies, so there are no “restoration of rights” to be considered—yet probably they shouldn’t be able to own a firearm.

Schizophrenics who are under treatment would be another. They may be stable when going to therapy and taking meds, haven’t committed crimes, don’t need to be locked up, but perhaps shouldn’t own a firearm.
Your argument is overly broad.

It doesn't make sense for someone who is an active member of society and not locked up to have full access to the same rights as the rest of us without a criminal record?

I didn't expect you to agree with anything I've said. But I'm sure you knew my restoration of rights applied to people who did time for a felony.

 

[spamking]

Always has been.
There was a great Ken Burns speech I saw recently where he describes history and politics as “parsing together the differences between the individual and the collective: the difference between “what I want” and “what we need.”

And I thought it was a perfect way to describe it. Both are important. Left wingers like me almost always view things in the context of the collective—what we need. Conservatives almost always view it in the individual context—what I want.

There are a LOT of us individuals who see it the same way. Almost like a collective with the same stance on things.

You forgot to mention the emotional pleas you guys make too.

 

[spamking]

By your logic we shouldn’t discuss these things at all.

Discussing things isn't the problem. People who purposefully twist what someone says in that discussion are what causes issues (not say you've done this, but a bunch of people in here do).

 

[BFoe]

It doesn't make sense for someone who is an active member of society and not locked up to have full access to the same rights as the rest of us without a criminal record?

I didn't expect you to agree with anything I've said. But I'm sure you knew my restoration of rights applied to people who did time for a felony.

Yes I did understand that; I thought in my previous post I made clear that I was providing some samples that weren’t felonies. We all know felons often lose rights. But there are stalking or harassment charges that are misdemeanors. There are domestic abuse charges that are misdemeanors. My intention was to demonstrate situations where a person isn’t locked up, isn’t a felon, but someone we still may not want to own a gun.

Some mental illnesses as well. Like, there are people who don’t need to be institutionalized per se, but probably it shouldn’t own a firearm.

There are a LOT of us individuals who see it the same way. Almost like a collective with the same stance on things.

You forgot to mention the emotional pleas you guys make too.

Right, but your stance is based on the individual rather than the collective. COVID is a prefect example of this: for some, wearing a mask or getting a vaccine was an inconvenience that was necessary for the greater good; for others, it was a gross violation of individual rights.

What do you mean by “emotional pleas”?? I hope you don’t mean things like us saying, “Hey y’all, we have way too much gun violence, way too many mass shootings, and innocent chilfrwn have to do mass shooter drills. Can we do something about that?”
—And then the response is: “Sure, we’ll pray for them.”

Discussing things isn't the problem. People who purposefully twist what someone says in that discussion are what causes issues (not say you've done this, but a bunch of people in here do).

Yeah, that happens. I do worry about reaching a point where our 2 sides re so far apart that no even sees a need to discuss or debate things. I find debate—when done in good faith, like you said—to be integral to the American experience.

 

[Deorum]

By your logic we shouldn’t discuss these things at all.

Hmm, I still find plenty to discuss. My primary interests are just always geared and focused on the strength of the country's agriculture, energy, and industrial sectors - the pillars of modern human civilization itself - with additional emphasis placed on our national security, conservation of our natural resources, and the health of our cultural and scientific institutions. I also love talking about the Framers and Bill of Rights in a general sense, as well as my favorite states (Zona, NoDak, Wyo) which are conveniently tied into the aforementioned in various ways. The likelihood of anybody else starting these threads was very, very low and people could learn a great deal.

Economy - Taiwan's Importance Can't Be Overstated - Or Can It? (+ TSMC US Mega-Site)

Kinda. Granted, if the CCP/PLA were to launch a military invasion in an attempt to take control of the "renegade province" by force that resulted in damage to TSMC's physical capital and interrupted chip production (or if Taiwan took sabotage measures itself in response), this wouldn't only be...

forums.sherdog.com

Crime - NoDak, CCP Espionage, and Bill Gates (?) [State Bans Foreign Governments From Buying Ag Land]

TL;DR: Ain't One. Look At Images? As tempting as it would be to use this thread to continue gushing over my beloved (North Dakota, to be clear), that can already be found elsewhere and throughout the Meme threads. There is actually a much larger conversation and skeptical speculation to be had...

forums.sherdog.com

Crime - America's National Park DM&R Backlog Swells, US Congress Proposes More Cuts

https://rollcall.com/2023/10/03/maintenance-backlog-grows-at-national-parks-as-funding-tightens/ Absolute Failure of an Institution. And I'm talking about our shithouse Congress, to be clear. I mean, yeah, it's a sizable chunk of change by any measure. Yet consider the federal government...

forums.sherdog.com

Economy - US Manufacturing Could Need Up To 3.8 Million New Employees by 2033

Yikes. Who Needs A Job? They're Here. 🇺🇸 🦅 https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/press-releases/us-manufacturing-could-need-new-employees-by-2033.html

forums.sherdog.com

International - The US/UK H-Bomb MDA Is Set To Expire

Originally signed on the eve of the 4th of July 1958 and hailed as "the great prize" by Super-Mac, this particular Mutual Defence* Agreement is arguably the most exclusive and significant bilateral treaty in existence. A rather brazen violation of international law and in contravention of the...

forums.sherdog.com

International - Wyoming Is Rare Earth

TL;DR: The United States already boasts an extraordinary combination of natural advantages, not only due to sheer geographic size and positioning between the world's two largest oceans but a batshit insane abundance of coastlines, ports, interconnected navigable rivers, freshwater sources...

forums.sherdog.com

 

[spamking]

Yes I did understand that; I thought in my previous post I made clear that I was providing some samples that weren’t felonies. We all know felons often lose rights. But there are stalking or harassment charges that are misdemeanors. There are domestic abuse charges that are misdemeanors. My intention was to demonstrate situations where a person isn’t locked up, isn’t a felon, but someone we still may not want to own a gun.

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.

Some mental illnesses as well. Like, there are people who don’t need to be institutionalized per se, but probably it shouldn’t own a firearm.

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

Right, but your stance is based on the individual rather than the collective. COVID is a prefect example of this: for some, wearing a mask or getting a vaccine was an inconvenience that was necessary for the greater good; for others, it was a gross violation of individual rights.

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.

What do you mean by “emotional pleas”?? I hope you don’t mean things like us saying, “Hey y’all, we have way too much gun violence, way too many mass shootings, and innocent chilfrwn have to do mass shooter drills. Can we do something about that?”
—And then the response is: “Sure, we’ll pray for them.”

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.