Bump stocks fail at SCOTUS

[pknopp]

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.

Fine with me as it is far from apparent.

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

You are arguing to tie the hares legs together before the fight.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

First, you need to move the argument to what right or responsibility the government has to remove guns from the people. The clear answer is, "NONE".

To fight off an oppressive government, or a foreign government, all falls under the category of 'self-defense'.

 

[pknopp]

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

What right does one owning any particular weapon conflict with the rights of others?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What right does one owning any particular weapon conflict with the rights of others?

How does me saying mean things about your conflict with your rights?

 

[pknopp]

How does me saying mean things about your conflict with your rights?

Saying mean things does not and that is not illegal. Lies that someway or another that does actual harm does though.

 

[Darkwind]

Fine with me as it is far from apparent.




You are arguing to tie the hares legs together before the fight.

So, I have to conclude you are being obtuse or deliberately argumentative for the simple sake of argument.

Self-defense is NOT incumbent upon winning the battle. It is a natural right that is enjoyed by every living thing and defense of life, your own or others, cannot be taken from us. Not by you, not by government, not by anything.

 

[pknopp]

So, I have to conclude you are being obtuse or deliberately argumentative for the simple sake of argument.

Self-defense is NOT incumbent upon winning the battle. It is a natural right that is enjoyed by every living thing and defense of life, your own or others, cannot be taken from us. Not by you, not by government, not by anything.

When the one that is understood is the entity you might have to defend yourself against can restrict your ability to do so, you no longer have that right.

The 2nd was created to tie the hands of the government, not the people. Taking your argument to it's conclusion, the government can further erode that right. After all, there are sticks to defend yourself with.

 

[Flash]

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'

If the goddamn ATF can make laws then what do we need Congress for?

The NFA is illegal and needs to be overturn just like Roe V Wade.

Bump stocks are not machine guns.

The Supreme Court got it wrong.

 

[1srelluc]

And you still can not address the issue.

Meh, most gun-owners did not care for them much anyway but the point was banning a accessory that the ATF had previously approved due to "feels" after the Vegas shooting.

Meanwhile the ATF turns their back on black 8th graders showing off their 3-D printed Glock switches (a real Class 3 device) in Chicago.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How does me saying mean things about your conflict with your rights?

No prior restraint, but damaging one's reputation is grounds for compensation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

1st Amendment:
Government cannot restrain my right to speak, but I am responsible for the damage my words cause.

2nd Amendment:
Government cannot infringe on my right to own machine guns, but I am responsible for the damage my bullets cause.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It won't end until machine guns are permitted on the streets of America.
The 2nd. amendment experiment in the children's schools must play out to some final logical conclusion.
Does it have to result in 100's of dead children in an elementary school by a group of shooters, before it's enough?
There's little doubt that the full automatic weapons are already in the hands of the extreme right Qanon and Oathkeepers, etc., regardless of any denial!

More mindless nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

And the 2nd says shall not be infringed.

Long established is the legal principle that you cannot exercise your rights in a manner that harms innocent people or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - that is, the 1st amendment does not protect the right to libel/slander someone or incite a riot.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, I have to conclude you are being obtuse or deliberately argumentative for the simple sake of argument.

Self-defense is NOT incumbent upon winning the battle. It is a natural right that is enjoyed by every living thing and defense of life, your own or others, cannot be taken from us. Not by you, not by government, not by anything.

So what you're really saying is… We need machine guns.

Agreed.