Military court rules "Bump Stocks," are not machine guns.....duh.....

[DrLove]

You guys keep lying about what Scalia said......you are dishonest assholes...

You dumb ass...what he actually said...

What did Scalia say about the rifle the Las Vegas shooter used? About 20 million Ar-15 Rifles are now in private hands........you idiot...

How could I be lying about what he said when I gave you direct quotes ? Ya dummy.

 

[DrLove]

Shit head.....he could have done that without the bump stock, you moron, and without the bumpstock every single one of those rounds would have gone into the crowd, not over the crowd....you idiot.

The bump stock saved lives...you dumb ass.

You don't know what you are talking about, but you continue to display your ignorance and stupidity...

Yea right - 9 rounds per second and 60 dead in 30 seconds.
And you pretend he was shooting "over the crowd"?
As if he could have done that with a semi AR in 30 seconds and no bump stock?
You truly are a dumb fuk

 

[BULLDOG]

Shit head.....he could have done that without the bump stock, you moron, and without the bumpstock every single one of those rounds would have gone into the crowd, not over the crowd....you idiot.


The bump stock saved lives...you dumb ass.

You don't know what you are talking about, but you continue to display your ignorance and stupidity...

So that's your argument? Bump stocks save lives? You are getting dumber by the day.

 

[BULLDOG]

There are thousands in private hands, one was used illegally, you dumb fuck.

Cars kill over 30,000 people every single year........we should ban those.

There are thousands of hits of meth in private hands. That isn't a very good argument for legalization.

 

[Flash]

There are limits to the second amendment. Did you know that Loony Bird? Scalia did. SCOTUS has confirmed a state's right to ban semi auto assault-style weapons.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."​

​

Scalia's language goes on to explain that an important limitation of this right is for especially dangerous weapons like machine guns. Since that ruling, federal appeals courts have accepted this language in upholding state laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons.​

​

Scalia also made clear that Heller casts no doubt on laws prohibiting possession of firearms in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," laws "imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," and other limitations.​

Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment

In their misleading argument that the Second Amendment is in danger of repeal, the authors of the Your View ignored the 2008 Heller decision in which conservative Justice Scalia’s majority op…

www.mcall.com

You dumbass Moon Bat. You are confused as hell about this as you are about everything else.

Scalia said the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right protected the same as the other individual rights.

He is not around to say what he thinks the limitations are but I guarantee you they are not the same as you filthy ass anti gun nut Moon Bats think they are.

 

[Flash]

One of the surest paths to get SCOTUS to hear your case is a split among the Federal appeals courts.

Ultimately, this case may go from the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals to the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, if the govt chooses to appeal. If CAAF agrees with NMCCCA, then you have yet another Federal appeals court saying "BATFE was out of line." Sure, it doesn't affect anyone outside the military, but it's another chip in the wall. That is a good thing.

 

[justinacolmena]

"BATFE was out of line."

So let us have our guns back then.

Sure, it doesn't affect anyone outside the military, but it's another chip in the wall. That is a good thing

And stop with the Marine Corps drill. It's dishonorable anyways if they don't let have our guns back.

 

[2aguy]

Yea right - 9 rounds per second and 60 dead in 30 seconds.
And you pretend he was shooting "over the crowd"?
As if he could have done that with a semi AR in 30 seconds and no bump stock?
You truly are a dumb fuk

You really don't know what you are talking about.....

As has been pointed out to you by actual people with experience with bump stocks......the recoil caused the muzzle to rise, sending rounds over the crowd, that meant bullets not hitting people.......then, the bump stock causes rifles to jam....meaning he would have to clear the malfunction to keep shooting....

Had he simply fired by pulling the trigger. he would have put more bullets directly into the crowd, killing and injuring more people...

That you don't understand this simply shows you are an idiot.

 

[2aguy]

So that's your argument? Bump stocks save lives? You are getting dumber by the day.

No...shithead......I stated the fact that he used a bump stock instead of simply pulling the trigger saved lives...you dumb ass.

 

[2aguy]

Yea right - 9 rounds per second and 60 dead in 30 seconds.
And you pretend he was shooting "over the crowd"?
As if he could have done that with a semi AR in 30 seconds and no bump stock?
You truly are a dumb fuk

60 people killed out of 22,000.......and you think with the bump stocks that meant he was hitting a lot of people? Again, you doofus.......the bump stock kept him from killing even more people.....you moron.

 

[hjmick]

"Bump stocks" are not machine guns... Well, duh.

 

[justinacolmena]

"Bump stocks" are not machine guns... Well, duh.

I don't think precise measurements of trigger pull and weight should have to regulated by law for each type of permitted weapon — to bring such fine details of gunsmithery to a court of law with the sole objective of banning guns and registering gun owners as sex offenders and murderers with DNA and fingerprints.

 

[whitehall]

Instead of finding out what the hell really happened on that evening in Vegas when a maniac named Stephen Paddock opened fire on a "Trump rally" country concert, we agonized for about three years about "bump stocks". With all it's resources the FBI couldn't come up with a motive when it was right in front of them but we still worry about "bump stocks". Go figure.

 

[BULLDOG]

You really don't know what you are talking about.....

As has been pointed out to you by actual people with experience with bump stocks......the recoil caused the muzzle to rise, sending rounds over the crowd, that meant bullets not hitting people.......then, the bump stock causes rifles to jam....meaning he would have to clear the malfunction to keep shooting....

Had he simply fired by pulling the trigger. he would have put more bullets directly into the crowd, killing and injuring more people...

That you don't understand this simply shows you are an idiot.

Do you consider deadly projectiles firing in random directions with no way to even guess who or what they may hit to be a good thing? A safety feature?

 

[justinacolmena]

Do you consider deadly projectiles firing in random directions with no way to even guess who or what they may hit to be a good thing? A safety feature?

Nobody would dispute the protectiles are deadly, that is the purpose of a firearm, after all, but the exact technique of ready, safety-off, aim, and fire is up to the discretion of the shooter, with an adequate safe range to fire the weapon and with backstop or some common sense of clear terrain free of human habitation downrange.

Some people might be exaggerating about the sensitivity of the trigger pull for political purposes, to call any sort of weapon a "bump stock" at all.

 

[Flash]

Do you consider deadly projectiles firing in random directions with no way to even guess who or what they may hit to be a good thing? A safety feature?

Since you are one of the Moon Bat pussies that are afraid of guns and don't know a lot about them and I do let me clue you in on something. There are several more effective ways to have killed more people. Double tap triggers, directed semi auto fire, semi auto with quick release triggers, legal or illegal machine guns. A bump stock was about the worst he could have chosen. That put bullets down but they were scattered so much the effectiveness was diminished.

You don't jack shit about bump stocks. All you know is that you are a filthy ass anti right to keep and bear arms Libtard asshole and anything banned is fine with you. Even if you don't know jack shit about what is being banned.

 

[Flash]

You would think that if bump stocks were such a danger to the public and there are over a million of them sold that there would be bump stock killings at least weekly. However, we only have one recorded crime with one and that is unclear on how much was actually done by the bump stock.

If bump stocks were so deadly as to require a suspension of the Bill of Rights to get them off the streets how come we don't see them being used in the shootings that happen nightly in these Democrat controlled big city shitholes like Chicago, where most of the gun crime in the US takes place?

If these asshole Moon Bats want to take away our Constitutional rights then it needs to be for something much more significant than one crime committed by one lunatic.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nobody would dispute the protectiles are deadly, that is the purpose of a firearm, after all, but the exact technique of ready, safety-off, aim, and fire is up to the discretion of the shooter, with an adequate safe range to fire the weapon and with backstop or some common sense of clear terrain free of human habitation downrange.

Some people might be exaggerating about the sensitivity of the trigger pull for political purposes, to call any sort of weapon a "bump stock" at all.

Ok, so do you consider having less control over the actual destination of that deadly projectile to be a good thing, or a bad thing? If your answer is dependant on the specific situation, please describe the circumstances where having less control, or even indication of the trajectory of that deadly projectile would be preferable.

 

[BULLDOG]

Since you are one of the Moon Bat pussies that are afraid of guns and don't know a lot about them and I do let me clue you in on something. There are several more effective ways to have killed more people. Double tap triggers, directed semi auto fire, semi auto with quick release triggers, legal or illegal machine guns. A bump stock was about the worst he could have chosen. That put bullets down but they were scattered so much the effectiveness was diminished.

You don't jack shit about bump stocks. All you know is that you are a filthy ass anti right to keep and bear arms Libtard asshole and anything banned is fine with you. Even if you don't know jack shit about what is being banned.

Thanks for your info. So what am I supposed to do with the guns I have now? I've had guns since I was a kid, and i'd really like to keep the first one one my daddy gave me when I was somewhere around 10 or 11, and that old 8 gage goose gun that was my grand dads, but if you say I don't know anything about them now, I guess I should do something with the rest of them. What would you do?

 

[BULLDOG]

You would think that if bump stocks were such a danger to the public and there are over a million of them sold that there would be bump stock killings at least weekly. However, we only have one recorded crime with one and that is unclear on how much was actually done by the bump stock.

If bump stocks were so deadly as to require a suspension of the Bill of Rights to get them off the streets how come we don't see them being used in the shootings that happen nightly in these Democrat controlled big city shitholes like Chicago, where most of the gun crime in the US takes place?

If these asshole Moon Bats want to take away our Constitutional rights then it needs to be for something much more significant than one crime committed by one lunatic.

Well said. It's about time one of you gun nuts stood up and said less control of where the bullet goes is what we all really want anyway. GOOD FOR YOU!!!