Top Democrats won't join calls for Justice Sotomayor to retire, but they still fear a Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeat

return2ozma@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 117 points –
Top Democrats won't join calls for Justice Sotomayor to retire, but they still fear a Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeat
nbcnews.com
30

You are viewing a single comment

What are you referring to?

Ammunition background checks, magazine capacity limitations, banning of NFA items, 1 in 30 limit, restrictive concealed carry policies, requiring non-existent technology for handguns, permit to possess, annual registration fees, etc

why is a background check for ammunition illegal?

lol, all you care about is your unlimited freedom to boomboom, if you block every attempt at sensible gun control of course they're going to go for your ammo.

Why is it ok for gun nuts to clog the court system with frivolous and specious bullshit, fighting for the right to own machine guns (they have the right just don't want to pay the --NOW MINISCULE-- tax stamp fee) and other such nonsense, but when gun control activists want to do the same it's ignoring the law?

Sucks when other people abuse the system instead of you I guess.

why is a background check for ammunition illegal?

I can't explain it as well as a district court judge, so here you go: https://casetext.com/case/rhode-v-bonta

Why don't you check your outrage a bit and try to address the actual point I was trying to make?

I'm sick of literalist 2a interpretations that ignore half the words in the amendment. Check your own bullshit, k thx.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Stop acting like it's only the last few words of the sentence. Stop acting like it matters what the musket toting founding fathers knew about bump stocks and armor piercing rounds. It's absurd and stupid.

If you won't concede to common sense regulation of firearms then the regulators are going to keep coming. I'm a firearm owner and prior service army officer, you fucking casuals, you mealteam six types who think you're entitled to 20th century weapons of war and then keep murdering civilians again and again are the real problem. Be realistic, how many mass shootings should we tolerate before trying SOMETHING?

How many more dead children will it take chickpea?

Thanks for proving my point. You don't give a shit what the supreme court has to say about it.

You don't give a shit about uvalde, the las vegas massacre, or any other innocents blasted, why should I give two flying fucks about the supreme court's bullshit?

Come on chickpea make it make sense.

I think that our society is going to drive certain people to do horrific things regardless of any regulations we could ever come up with, so imposing limitations on people's ability to defend themselves and their communities will only ever increase the body count. We need to fix the way we treat each other. We don't need to be worrying about what kind of handle is on a weapon.

so you think people are inherently untrustworthy yet you want more armed people.

Look bright lights, the fucking country already has more guns than people. YOUR AMAZING PLAN IS NOT WORKING.

I know what it is - you don't give a fuck because it hasn't impacted your life.

YET.

It will, eventually, then you'll grow a soul.

I just wanted to point out that the supreme court can effectively be ignored and provided an example. You're jumping to insane conclusions and getting really worked up about it. Chill the fuck out and go get yourself some counseling.

It upsets you that you can't come up with a sensible argument, I get it. Being on the wrong side of history is a shit place. You can project your frustrations on me, call me angry, suggest I get counseling but none of it is gonna bring back the dead innocents from your stupid hobby.

Gonna block you now so I never have to read another stupid comment, enjoy the remainder of your apparently wretched existence.