And you vote for them.No they dont’. I know lots of guns folks. None of them want those types of people to have guns.
No one I know has a problem with a single, young, mental patient, or gang banger have reduced access to guns.
You should review your favorite politicians’ voting records.
If you’re for real, well, you’re gonna be mighty surprised.
You have a hard time not seeing things in black and white. Just because someone votes to not support a proposed restriction, does not mean they want the people I described to have guns. If there were laws profiling certain people and keeping them from getting guns, it would have more support. But that is not typcally how the laws are proposed.
The idiots in the scotus will be deciding, among other things, if the federal ban on fully automatic weapons is constitutional. Because, based on the idiotic and highly selective “originalist” reading of the 2A, really all arms (automatic weapons, grenade launchers, shoulder fired missiles, etc.) should all be perfectly legal for all americans. Can’t wait.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that most of the people responding on this thread haven’t read the article you linked, or reviewed the case before SCOTUS. If you read the entire article, way down towards the bottom they make it clear the the case is challenging the inclusion of the bumpstock as a device that converts a semi-automatic weapon to an automatic weapon. It is not about making “machineguns” legal in the US for all to buy.
The Cargill plaintiff’s stronger argument, meanwhile, turns on the federal law’s statement that a machine gun must engage in automatic fire “by a single function of the trigger.†Federal judges are quite divided on how to read this provision, which does appear to be genuinely ambiguous.
Just because someone votes to not support a proposed restriction, does not mean they want the people I described to have guns. If there were laws profiling certain people and keeping them from getting guns, it would have more support. But that is not typcally how the laws are proposed.
I don’t think you are familiar how voting and politics works.
I think you can be I favour of shooting as a sport, and simultaneously be against the public at large wandering around with weapons.
I used to shoot competitively as a kid at an indoor range; guns were locked up afterwards. I used to compete in march and shoot competitions, and target shooting team; ammo was doled out when needed and returned afterwards.
That’s a lot different to two guys thinking the other is looking at him funny in a crowded area and pulling out handguns, firing indiscriminately into a crowd.
Unfortunately, laws have to cater to the lowest common denominator of intelligence, and unfortunately guns seem to cater to a lot of the lowest common denominator folk.
The idiots in the scotus will be deciding, among other things, if the federal ban on fully automatic weapons is constitutional. Based on the idiotic and higly selective “originalist” reading of the 2A, all arms (automatic weapons, grenade launchers, shoulder fired missiles, etc.) should be perfectly legal. Can’t wait.
The SCOTUS should be a group we have 100% confidence in, however, the current makeup gives me almost 0% confidence they will do the right thing. Roberts needs to be a little more heavy handed in dealing with justices such as thomas should retire effective immediately.
Do the right thing or follow the Constitution? There’s a distinct difference that is very important. Had you said interpret the Constitution such automatic weapons can be banned that is completely different than do the right thing.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that most of the people responding on this thread haven’t read the article you linked, or reviewed the case before SCOTUS. If you read the entire article, way down towards the bottom they make it clear the the case is challenging the inclusion of the bumpstock as a device that converts a semi-automatic weapon to an automatic weapon. It is not about making “machineguns” legal in the US for all to buy.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if the scotus rules that bump stocks are acceptable, the ban on new automatic weapons will be dismembered next. Because most gun nutters and repubs think it’s not a constitutional law. Jim in this thread confirmed it.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that most of the people responding on this thread haven’t read the article you linked, or reviewed the case before SCOTUS. If you read the entire article, way down towards the bottom they make it clear the the case is challenging the inclusion of the bumpstock as a device that converts a semi-automatic weapon to an automatic weapon. It is not about making “machineguns” legal in the US for all to buy.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if the scotus rules that bump stocks are acceptable, the ban on new automatic weapons will be dismembered next. Because most gun nutters and repubs think it’s not a constitutional law. Jim in this thread confirmed it.
You are going pretty far out on that limb. Isn’t it getting warm somewhere and ruining the planet that needs more attention than the concern the SC is going to arm all folks with fully auto weapons?
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that most of the people responding on this thread haven’t read the article you linked, or reviewed the case before SCOTUS. If you read the entire article, way down towards the bottom they make it clear the the case is challenging the inclusion of the bumpstock as a device that converts a semi-automatic weapon to an automatic weapon. It is not about making “machineguns” legal in the US for all to buy.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if the scotus rules that bump stocks are acceptable, the ban on new automatic weapons will be dismembered next. Because most gun nutters and repubs think it’s not a constitutional law. Jim in this thread confirmed it.
That’s a very big leap from what is actually being argued in front of the court. Considering the terms (gun nutters and repubs) you used it is obviously emotionally driven and not reasoned, and that is the problem on both sides.
But l would really like your opinion on that question. What do you think?
Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.
But l would really like your opinion on that question. What do you think?
Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.
You a betting man?
The SC had previously said (for 50 years) that abortions were legal up to viability. But they “found” a reason to change that.
My personal view on this (legalization of automatic weapons) is that it isn’t worth it. Arguments that automatic weapons are mainly owned by gun nuts rather than criminals rings hollow to me…that may be how it is today but we know what happened in Las Vegas for example, and a bump stock or any other means of making a semi-auto fire practically the same as a full auto is just another design for a full auto weapon.
I’ve owned guns personally since I was 12 years old but I’ve never fired nor wanted to fire a full auto firearm. As others have said, feeding one would be very expensive. Off the top of my head, a 20 round magazine of 5.56 would probably cost anywhere from $10-$20 to fill, and that is 2 seconds on full auto. I like to shoot pellet guns (much cheaper, can do it in my garage or back yard, etc) and there are plenty of replica full auto available cheaply (even more if you get into airsoft…where you can actually shoot AT people), but I see little entertainment value…I’d spend all my time loading a magazine…and that’s for an air rifle that I could possibly control on full auto. So I personally don’t see why anyone would want one other than micro-penis compensation, and there is absolutely nobody who NEEDS one. If I had to get into a gun fight and could force the other guy to have one of those full-auto modified Glocks, that might be a real smart choice since he wouldn’t be able to hit anything after the first round and his magazine would be quickly gone. I also think FPS video games make having these in the general public more dangerous.
But l would really like your opinion on that question. What do you think?
Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.
You a betting man?
The SC had previously said (for 50 years) that abortions were legal up to viability. But they “found” a reason to change that.
I don’t bet on SC decisions. Perhaps the Dallas Cowboys every now and then but that’s a losing proposition most of the time.
I agree on abortion and pointed that out earlier. But, there is no clamoring for the SC to make fully auto’s legal. The majority if not 80% of the country is fine without fully auto being legal to everyone or having no restrictions. There is no call for everyone to have a fully auto.
There have been calls for overturning Roe v. Wade since it was issued.
My personal view on this (legalization of automatic weapons) is that it isn’t worth it. Arguments that automatic weapons are mainly owned by gun nuts rather than criminals rings hollow to me…that may be how it is today but we know what happened in Las Vegas for example, and a bump stock or any other means of making a semi-auto fire practically the same as a full auto is just another design for a full auto weapon.
Yeah, I am not in favor of legalizing automatic weapons. I am more just trying to read the tea leaves as to where this nutter court might be headed.
Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.
Can you point to the Supreme Court decision on this? I’d be interested in the reasoning behind it. Thanks.
The Cargill v. Garland case will have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, February 28. This case is not about allowing machineguns to be purchased by everyone. It is about the ATF just making up rules as they feel like it without approval from Congress.
Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.
Can you point to the Supreme Court decision on this? I’d be interested in the reasoning behind it. Thanks.
Yes, I too would also be very, very interested in this.