Bump stocks fail at SCOTUS

[pknopp]

So, you are assuming that the right to bear arms is one given to the citizens by the government?

It is according to the court.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Supreme Court has ruled here that there are limits on the 2nd. Have you read these limits in the 2nd?

There are limits on everything.

The 1st says there can be no "abridging the freedom of speech" yet we have liable laws and slander laws and things that are illegal to say (like talking about a bomb while on a plane).

The 1st says there can be no prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet I cannot sacrifice a virgin to Odin.

The 1st says the Govt cannot abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble...yet permits often have to be given in order to do so.

I am really not sure what sort of point you think you are making.

Can you just out out and say it and quit trying to be coy, you suck at it

 

[Darkwind]

It is according to the court

The court is wrong. The right to self defense is a natural right and one in which the government is obligated to protect; not limit.

 

[pknopp]

There are limits on everything.

The 1st says there can be no "abridging the freedom of speech" yet we have liable laws and slander laws and things that are illegal to say (like talking about a bomb while on a plane).

The 1st says there can be no prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet I cannot sacrifice a virgin to Odin.

The 1st says the Govt cannot abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble...yet permits often have to be given in order to do so.

I am really not sure what sort of point you think you are making.

Can you just out out and say it and quit trying to be coy, you suck at it

Why was the 2nd enacted in the first place?

 

[pknopp]

The court is wrong. The right to self defense is a natural right and one in which the government is obligated to protect; not limit.

What good is self defense when you have inferior weapons?

 

[Darkwind]

What good is self defense when you have inferior weapons?

Not germane to the concept of self-defense.

Nothing wins 100% of the time, but the weapon gives many a fighting chance at survival.

 

[pknopp]

Not germane to the concept of self-defense.

Nothing wins 100% of the time, but the weapon gives many a fighting chance at survival.

As to the reasons the 2nd was enacted to start with, it most certain is. You gun grabbers arguments aside.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why was the 2nd enacted in the first place?

Depends on who you ask.

Does it really matter?

Are you ever going get to your point or just play dumb games?

 

[pknopp]

Depends on who you ask.

Does it really matter?

Are you ever going get to your point or just play dumb games?

Yes it really matters.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes it really matters.

Then give us your answer to your question.

 

[pknopp]

Then give us your answer to your question.

The 2nd was enacted for multiple reasons but one of the most pressing was the ability of the people to defend itself from the government, be it the government from another country or their own.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes but they ruled the ban on bump stops was justified because of the ban on the weapon to start with. So again, they have ruled the people have the right to own only certain weapons which again leads to my question, why it is that people have the right in the first place?

I get your reasoning.

Either we have the right to weapons or we do not.

All federal gun laws should be stricken as unconstitutional, given the plain language of the second amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not germane to the concept of self-defense.

Nothing wins 100% of the time, but the weapon gives many a fighting chance at survival.

The purpose of the second amendment was to armed the citizens to be ready for war.

Banning weapons that are designed for war is absolutely fucking stupid and in violation of the Second Amendment.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I get your reasoning.

Either we have the right to weapons or we do not.

All federal gun laws should be stricken as unconstitutional, given the plain language of the second amendment.

The same with liable/slander laws?

The same with any law the restricts what someone does in the name of their religion?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And, by the way, just because the Supreme Court denies certiorari, does not mean the Supreme Court is necessarily agreeing with the lower court decisions.

They can only take so many cases a year.

Many times they wait for a more pure case to review.

 

[struth]

So the Supreme Court backs the Federal Law against automatic weapons in one ruling while ruling in an earlier ruling that the people had a right to own weapons.

Why do the people have the right to own weapons? Would the ban against automatic weapons not invalidate those reasons?

U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to ban on gun 'bump stocks'

bump stocks aren't automatic weapons.

moreover, no, having a right to own weapons....and we have that right in the 2nd Amendment, doesn't mean the Govt can't regulate the sale of them

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The same with liable/slander laws?

The same with any law the restricts what someone does in the name of their religion?

those are not even close to the same.

First off, libel and slander laws are tort remedies. That is not prior restraint by government.

Neither is it the same with religious practices. Anything that disturbs the rights of others should not be allowed.

The mere possession of a fucking machine gun does nothing to the rights of others.

This discussion is over.

 

[pknopp]

And, by the way, just because the Supreme Court denies certiorari, does not mean the Supreme Court is necessarily excepting the lower court decisions.

They can only take so many cases a year.

Many times they wait for a more pure case to review.

They noted in the ruling that they believe the ban on the weapon itself is valid.

 

[Darkwind]

As to the reasons the 2nd was enacted to start with, it most certain is. You gun grabbers arguments aside.

Well, if it isn't apparent to you that I am a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, I'm not sure you should even be having this conversation.


Look, simply because a hare cannot win if it is attacked by a coyote, does that mean it [the hare] should not try to defend itself? Do you now see how silly your argument about not being able to win making a difference?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

First off, libel and slander laws are taught remedies. That is not prior restraint by government.

Neither is it the same with religious practices. Anything that disturbs the rights of others should not be allowed.

The plain language of the 1st says those rights cannot be abridged.