Where are all the 2A absolutists?

But I am still wondering, why did the american gun community roll over and give up when the govt banned automatic firearms the first time? That was a totally unconstitutional move then, and nobody in the gun groups really pushed back. How come?

The first reason is standing. Someone would have to commit a crime with a machinegun. That didn’t happen very often after the NFA was enacted because most of the people that owned machineguns were law-abiding. They had just paid $200 for the tax stamp that was required to own it. (That was about $4,000 in today’s dollars.) And if someone did commit a crime with a machinegun, they would typically make a plea bargain for a short prison term instead of risking a very long prison term.

The second reason was that the political climate around 1934 was geared up to punish mob crime. If a straight up 2nd Amendment challenge was made against the NFA’s restriction on machineguns, it would have likely lost at all court levels, including the Supreme Court. No one wanted to burn money paying for a lawsuit when they had no chance of winning.

When the majority of Americans want common sense gun laws to secure their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, the minority who want unfettered gun rights must concede to the will/power of the majority.

Is that how it works? Just because “the majority” wants it?

What if “the majority” of the country used some interpretation of higher crime rates committed by minorities to justify “common sense laws” that targeted minorities?

I support stricter regulations for guns but it has nothing to do with “the majority’s” thoughts or desires or anything other than common sense and what is practical for this right.

Why do we hold elections if we aren’t governed by the majority? Who do you think gives power to our leaders? Do you want to he governed by someone other than the majority?

I would question your conclusion that the majority wants stricter gun laws, but it that is true then there is a tried and true mechanism to grant that majorities wishes.

BTW, it is being discussed in SCOTUS as I write, and it doesn’t look good for the bump stock ban, but not for the reasons most predicted. They are going back to the Chevron debate and asking why congress didn’t simply make them against the law. They are more interested in the ATF overreach.

Whether the majority wants stricter gun laws will likely be made evident during the next few election cycles.

The Sandy Hook kindergarten class is graduating from high school this year and will be eligible to vote in November. The Uvalde shooting last year was right about graduation time and seems to be evidence that our gun problem hasn’t magically solved itself. These kids have had active shooter drills throughout their school life. I think, although I don’t know, that they might feel more in favor of common sense gun laws than some of the posters on this forum.

Playing devil’s advocate, maybe these first time voters who have grown up in a society with a tolerance for school shootings and having never experienced a life absent of the potential for a school shooting, have become inured to the possibility of change.

It can be difficult to aspire to an ideal that is alien to one’s life experience.

Meanwhile, a school shooter was convicted today in Australia.

Fortunately, no one was killed in the shooting. Or injured. Only three shots were fired, somewhat aimlessly, two from the road into the side of a building and one into the lawn.

15 year old had accessed the key to his father’s gun safe (a legal requirement) and taken his rifle, then the parents’ car keys and drove to the school.

This was Australia’s first school shooting. Not this month or even this year. The first ever.

Meanwhile, several thousand guns were recently voluntarily surrendered and destroyed in that state as part of state government’s Gun Buy Back program to facilitate a safer society.

Not sure whether this sounds like a utopian dream or dystopian nightmare to those in the US.

Utopian dream.

Should I start a militia?

Are you the government? If no, then you can’t start one according to the constitution.

How about a club that is comprised of people that like to shoot guns?

Should I start a militia?

Are you the government? If no, then you can’t start one according to the constitution.

So, a group of men who just fought a war to overthrow a tyrannical government wanted to make sure that only the new government would have control of firearms/militia?

Makes sense.

https://youtu.be/9CyAdYsknyE?si=THIaoX9c3dLyGPOQ
.

The first reason is standing. Someone would have to commit a crime with a machinegun.
Sure, l’m not a lawyer, but l am generally familiar with standing. But this is confusing, what does crime have to do with it? Couldn’t a regular citizen that wanted to purchase a newly manufactured automatic firearm (for hunting, target pracice, or any other legal purpose) but was prevented from doing so by govt regulation, would not that citizen have standing to sue on 2A infringement grounds?

The second reason was that the political climate around 1934 was geared up to punish mob crime.
Also confusing. I thought that the availability of guns has zero affect on crime? Or it has an inverse effect on crime (i.e., more guns equals less crime). So I would think that if there was a lot of crime then, the political climate would have favored more guns, and more automatic guns as well, and not less guns?

Help me out, what am l missing?

I just saw a news story about an LA school. I hope people pause and consider the impact of guns on the current crop of kids. America, get your shit together! Take care of your kids.

IMG_3432.jpeg

Help me out, what am l missing?
That the full auto thing is just a distraction and the NRA et al are in the final stages of negotiations with SCOTUS as to what payments will be required to secure the sale of RPG’s.

Lets face it, America is fucked and will probably never change.
What you really need (sadly) is a couple of very prominent people or their children to get killed and then things may change.
But of course those that are making the decisions in DC have enough money to send their kids to private schools with heavily armed security guards so that is unlikely.
I still can’t fathom that you have to send your child to a school with armed security as the risk is so high that they could be otherwise killed WHILE AT SCHOOL.

Anyway, my old man handed in his Winchester semi-auto shotgun back in the day and was very happy with the compensation he got from the government (talking about the Australian gun buy back in 1996)
My mother was also happy to not have it sitting in the wardrobe with a box of ammo sitting on the shelf above.

https://youtu.be/kryIJIrD5eQ?si=j2ZOdoMcY8oEJzu4
.

The first reason is standing. Someone would have to commit a crime with a machinegun.Sure, l’m not a lawyer, but l am generally familiar with standing. But this is confusing, what does crime have to do with it? Couldn’t a regular citizen that wanted to purchase a newly manufactured automatic firearm (for hunting, target pracice, or any other legal purpose) but was prevented from doing so by govt regulation, would not that citizen have standing to sue on 2A infringement grounds?

The second reason was that the political climate around 1934 was geared up to punish mob crime.Also confusing. I thought that the availability of guns has zero affect on crime? Or it has an inverse effect on crime (i.e., more guns equals less crime). So I would think that if there was a lot of crime then, the political climate would have favored more guns, and more automatic guns as well, and not less guns?

Help me out, what am l missing?

The Supreme Court just said that bumpstocks are not machineguns.

The Supreme Court just said that bumpstocks are not machineguns.

Yep, just as predicted.

The Supreme Court just said that bumpstocks are not machineguns.

But no reply to my previous post?

So, with this wonderful new ruling, are you looking forward to some other loony mowing down 50+ people or kids again, LasVegas style? Or maybe one of 'dem middle-aged “good guys with a gun” will save us, eh??
🤣 🤣

The Supreme Court just said that bumpstocks are not machineguns.

Have we learned that the Supreme Court (six Justices, anyway) are MORE in the pocket of the NRA and Second Amendment groups than they are of Donald Trump?

The Supreme Court just said that bumpstocks are not machineguns.

So what if they were? Surely machine guns should be legal too?

The Supreme Court just said that bumpstocks are not machineguns.

Have we learned that the Supreme Court (six Justices, anyway) are MORE in the pocket of the NRA and Second Amendment groups than they are of Donald Trump?

I’m surprised that Trump didn’t have a bit more pull with the Supreme Court considering that it was Trump who told the ATF to make bumpstocks illegal.

And this ruling happened on Trump’s birthday.

SCOTUS loves mass shootings!

Heather Alvarado, age 35. RIP