If memory serves, the Obama administration (the one far right was screaming for 8 years was going to take away all the guns) specifically looked at bump stocks and said they were legal.
Trump freaked out at the Las Vegas shooting and pushed the ban ASAP.
"Take away their guns and worry about the due process later”
Donald Trump.
Quoting that anti-constitution anti-gun president got me banned from a libertarian subreddit back in the day. I made it very clear I was against his position on blatantly violating the Fourth Amendment. I guess they were just extremely triggered by the quote?
There's quite a lot of people out there who don't actually have principles, they just have things they like and a team to root for.
Biden and the dems are not 2a friendly...but neither is any repub or trumpers. Both are true.
Rich people want to take away the ability of us poor commoners to resist their oppression and defend ourselves.
Yup, we all fight eaxh other for table scraps while they eat the full meal. Our fight shouldn't be us vs each other. It should be us vs them.
Edit: who the fuck is down voting this lol
In that case, it's weird that you're telling that to me and not the Trump person who replied to me who suggested the opposite.
Let me know when you've replied to them about it. (I won't be holding my breath.)
Apparently the way Lemmy's link creation works makes all first-level replies to your comment the same link AS your comment. So, in providing the link 'to be helpful', you only linked to your own comment. That's not actually helpful and so it doesn't come across in the best way.
And yet they knew what I was linking to because they, like me, know how Lemmy works. And you know they knew because they were talking about that post.
Oof. Nevermind, then. Tried to show you why being an asshole about it might have backfired, but keep being jaded!
Just FYI, I was responding to a libertarian regular who thinks there should essentially be no gun regulations.
Also, they're a bigot.
They won’t say it out loud…even though it’s a massive part of it. The youth are staring at a shit load of immigrants from hard right religious countries yelling at how they want to turn their country into a Shira law shit hole…but no it’s the social media…
From an outsider perspective, it looks like you told him to "go respond to this guy instead", but linked the same comment that it was already responding to. It was confusing and made you look like the asshole in the situation, which I'm trying to help prevent in the future.
I'm not sure how else to link to someone's post than to do it the only way Lemmy allows you to do it.
I read that as sarcasm for some reason
I see you have not responded to them about how Trump is not friendly toward the Second Amendment. Looks like I was correct to not have held my breath.
Again, maybe I'm reading it wrong but I thought their comment was sarcasm. The orange turnip is not a 2a advocate.
Maybe you should make sure they're aware of it just in case you're reading it wrong.
I doubt you will though. Please, do prove me incorrect on that.
bro look at the comment link you posted it is your comment link
That's how posting links in Lemmy works. It shows you the context, one link above yours.
Bumpstocks are oldshit in comparison to "super safeties." They push the trigger forward after you shoot. So you just squeeze, and you get quick individual trigger pulls at close to an automatic rate. It's also easier to aim. Also, it's a tiny piece you can 3d print. Also, I'm NOT linking it.
He said it, not me. I'd post it, but I like my dog.
Thanks stranger! I love Hoffman Tactical.
The ban on bump stocks was implemented using the Firearms' Owners Protection Act of 1986. Which was signed into law by Reagan (funny how a failed assassination will change things).
The text at issue is
SEC. 109. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.
(a) Section 58450)) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b))
is amended by striking out "any combination of parts designed and
intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun," and
inserting in lieu thereof "any part designed and intended solely
and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for
use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,"
IMO the majority in this decision is choosing to blatantly ignore the text of the act which was clearly chosen to future-proof for any advancement which would result in an effortless high rate of fire such as bump stock and super safety. Instead they are insisting that Congress must amend the law to include specific parts which of course is a losing battle as there will always be a new part that achieves an effortless high rate of fire.
Now where one could argue that this ruling is correct is the accepted definition of a machinegun requires a single trigger action.
Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger
Personally I think the laws should be amended to define weapons and munitions by their result (high or continuous rate of fire) instead of their form or function. As it stands, someone could create a weapon that simply fires continuously but does not resemble a gun in any other way. Would such a weapon be a machinegun if it doesn't even have a trigger?
I think the dissenting opinion was more inline with the intent of FOPA.
They don't need to ban specific parts, and in fact they shouldn't. They could ban anything designed to accelerate rate of fire.
I don't think anyone is going to build a triggerless pseudo-machine gun. You could build one where, when you close the action, it fires until it's out of ammo, but that's not very controllable. See also: slamfire.
They don't need to ban specific parts, and in fact they shouldn't. They could ban anything designed to accelerate rate of fire.
That's exactly what they should do. But SCOTUS seems to think that the bump stock cannot be banned because there is no law about bump stocks specifically.
Bump stock still requires single function of the trigger. Might want to research how it actually works.
The entire logic of the Court's opinion rests on the fact that bump stocks still use a seperate trigger action per shot. They just cause the trigger to automatically trigger against a stationary finger instead of the shooter needing to manually actuate their trigger finger.
Is this an obtusely litteral reading of a law that was clearly intended to be more broadly interpreted? Probably. But it is a reading with a majority support on the court, so we are stuck with it until congress amends the law.
Isn't it that the trigger is squeezed once and the recoil causes the crock to bounce back which results in another trigger action? Even though there is only one action by the shooter, it would seem to be multiple trigger actions.
Correct. I mean, the thing was specifically designed to get high fire rates while technically keeping guns semi auto. That's why legislation is an arms race. You ban certain things, gun manufacturers design around it.
I contend that what a bump stock does is make the trigger the entire front half of the gun and your finger is merely a passive mechanical part. Like, you could replace your finger with a bent fork glued onto the bump stock and it would still function as intended. Your finger becomes the auto-sear, the entire front half of the rifle is the trigger.
I contend that what a bump stock does is make the trigger the entire front half of the gun and your finger is merely a passive mechanical part. Like, you could replace your finger with a bent fork glued onto the bump stock and it would still function as intended. Your finger becomes the auto-sear, the entire front half of the rifle is the trigger.
I'm all for gun control, though, I feel like banning bump stocks won't do much. Aren't they incredibly easy to make?
Yea, your belt loop makes a great one.
This one went over my head. Do you fire from the hip?
Yea, it's from the hip, but it shows that you don't need anything special to bump fire a gun.
Hell some guns will just kinda do it after awhile. M1 Garands do it with age relatively easily, mind you good luck with the accuracy automatic .308 was abandoned for a reason.
I don't think slam fire with stuck firing pins counts lol
One of my SKS's decided to do that shit and that was scary as fuck for the 2 seconds it lasted.
All you need for bumpfire to happen is hold the gun in such a manner that the recoil pushes the gun away from your finger and you pulling forward causes your finger to hit the trigger.
People use beltloops as a way to keep your finger stationary. There are plenty of YouTube videos on how to do a bumpfire.
So can hunter biden buy a bump stock now? I am shocked that the NRA was not representing hunter.
He probably could, but he can't buy a gun to put on it so what he's got is a funny shaped ineffective club.
Couldn't he join a gun club and get around that rule?
Of course they do. If it destabilizes society snd increases mortality in any way, its on their agenda
I got a bunch of leaves and my neighbor too. He's very rich. Can we please just burn all the leaves? The smoke will go east and there's nothing there, just a hospital and a premature baby nursery. I assume this is okay by the supreme court. Oh and we want to do it naked and we want to pop our guns into the fire. You know, for 4th of July stuff.
I'm confused. Are you planning to burn your rich neighbor as well, or just the leaves? SCOTUS is probably not on board with the former, but you'd get plenty of support on lemmy.
I am against burning people alive. I know controversial take.
Well if you all wanna eat the rich I suppose that's one way to do it. But they probably won't like it and it will be difficult.
The Supreme Court could find this but couldn't find abortion.
Ok then.
Bump stocks are largely irrelevant since the invention of Hellfire Triggers:
It's essentially a "bent piece of metal". I don't see how you could control that.
That video is talking about auto-sears which are illegal.
For once the Supreme Court makes the right call. Broken clocks and whatnot.
Is it the right call? What was the reason for the denial? Bump stocks are a work around to automatic laws isn't it?
The problem is the laws regulating automatics are absolutely idiotic, and automatic weapons are 100% legal to own, just kind of expensive. Not like "need to be a multi-millionaire" expensive, but "can afford to pay cash for a late-model used car".
Like most of our half-assed regulations, it doesn't actually do anything other than making it pay to play. We don't actually want to do anything that might prevent cops and their buddies from having a monopoly on force, so basically every gun law is moot for them anyway, even if they're buying them as private citizens.
That's one of the biggest concerns I have with the way we regulate firearms (among many other things) in the US, because they clearly aren't made with a mindset of "X thing is bad for society as a whole, we need to do something about it", it's "X thing is totally fine if you're in our special club, but the plebs are not allowed to have it.
I was initially against the ruling, but you just convinced me. The broken clock really was right this time.
Being "anti-gun" is almost universally actually just being "pro-gun-but-only-for-the-state" when you sit down and analyze it
When the police and army disarm themselves, then we'll talk
what a silly thing
I missed that part about bump stocks in the constitution.
e: Could someone please point it out for me?
I suppose the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Unless prohibited by law, you have the power to do anything you like. As it probably says in the article, this needs to be law, not ATF opinion.
That wasn’t remotely the basis of the ruling. It was essentially ruled that they don’t meet the definition of a machine gun in the law, which limits what the ATF can do. It was mentioned that congress can amend the law and ban them. They just haven’t.
Right. And because Congress hasn't prohibited them, they're fair game.
I was talking more about the general principle of what is allowed versus prohibited than this specific case, though.
My point is, they did not rule a ban unconstitutional, since they asked where it was in the constitution.
I read it as asking where in the Constitution there is a right to bump stocks. Did you read as asking where the ban is?
And there is no constitutional right to bump stocks. They just ruled there is no current law against it. If there was a constitutional right to them, you couldn’t ban them even with a law.
I didn’t say he was asking where the ban is.
I think article 1 section 1 sums it up best
It's right there in the paragraph about nuclear weapons.
Trump is no longer the only president to actually do something about guns in the last 20 years.
Hey now, Obama "did something"... he expanded gun rights. :)
"One of the laws allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks; that law took effect in February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan's policy that required guns to be locked in glove compartments of trunks of cars that enter national parks.
Another gun law signed by Obama allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, a move that reversed a measure put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."
the right to bear arms exists to protect people from tyrants
the whole premise of this right is that we can't trust the government to keep our liberty safe because they could become the tyrants. if one day some religious idiot comes into power who doesn't want women learning math, you may end up glad that conservatives have made it easier for women to fight for their liberty by refusing to allow these rights to be eroded
Religious tyrants have gotten into power, they are forcing women into service as incubators. Nobody sane has taken up arms against the government. It is the "conservatives" who are fighting at the ballot box to erode our liberties and human rights.
"Conservatives" want to elect an openly racist demagogue who already committed a putsch and is asking SCOTUS to hand him a Long Knife.
LOL "conservatives" refusing to allow rights to be eroded. Yeah buddy, the women are going to force their way into math class holding the teacher at gunpoint.
things are bad now. it doesnt mean they cant get worse
I agree. Hopefully people don't vote for the "conservatives" who do keep making everything worse.
I'll remind my daughter next time she calls me having a panic attack during an active shooter lockdown that at least she still has the right to love who she wantsmake her own reproductive healthcare choicesget IVF if she can't have kidsbe open and honest about who she is
teach your daughter to use weapons, allow weapons in schools, and let her destroy anyone who attacks her.
i am sorry religious idiots are taking away her rights. these idiots are luring in many supporters because they support the second amendment. liberals need to start being pro-gun and get these religious idiots out of power
Are we in a civilized society, or a warzone?
the right to bear arms exists to protect people from tyrants
This is a complete fiction, a true American mythology that exists in the modern day.
The right to bear arms was more about homestead defense against indigenous natives and foreign invading armies than it was for any kind of poison pill for Americans to topple their own government if they woke up one day and decided they don't like who's in charge anymore. The very notion that the founders would set up a new system of governance but be okay with the idea of baking in gun ownership rights to ensure that the people will always be able to conduct a violent insurrection as the vehicle for regime change is absurd.
Everybody likes to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of that amendment, conveniently ignoring that a well regulated militia would answer to the state or the federal government, the very force of tyranny that they claim they need the guns to defend themselves against.
Conservatives would be the first to call anyone participating in the uprising unamerican and would be more likely to form reactionary militias supportive of the fascist government than to overthrow anything
Hadis Najafi was a feminist. A world hero. I hope one day in a brave new feminist world, she has a holiday. I wish I had met her. I'd give anything to have met her. I don't believe in an afterlife, but if heaven were real I would get to meet her. How can one person be so courageous?
She fought without being armed because she was a hero and she couldn't not fight. She had enough and said fuck it, I know I'm going to die and don't care. Although she said "I like to think that when I think about this a few years later I'll be pleased I joined the protest" I believe a part of her new she could die, I think this was something she said to comfort herself. Heroes fight even when the odds aren't great. I wish I could become a good and courageous person like her.
You think it's bad now?
Don't be myopic. This is a woman who would have been a hero with our without weapons, but she could have done more if she had the right to bare arms.
Yes, it matters and the NRA matters and feminism matters and the solution is making sure women have more and larger guns and better tactical training.
No the NRA doesn't matter, right wing support of weapons doesn't matter. The left wing support of weapons matters.
Is there such a thing? Is there a left wing organization battling for the rights of women to own any weapon she pleases? If so, please enlighten me on this.
Unsurprisingly the political organization whose power comes from private funding is the one backing right wing fascist bullshit. You're not going to find a left wing organization with the same resources because it won't have corporate political backing.
Anarchists and other leftists (leftists, not liberals) are typically pro-gun and for the reasons you mention
one day, in a world full of female scientists who rule the world, it may become irrelevant, an anachronistic right that no one even really uses
I agree with the first part. It was supposed to be a check and balance to government power and oppression. It gives people the power to fight back against injustice.
However, in the time of intercontinental missiles, planes, tanks, and remote operated drones, are a bunch of peasants with guns actually going to do anything if the government turned on its people? Does the "right to bear arms" not extend to other, non-gun weapons?
Yeah, you're bringing guns to an unmanned drone fight.
Guns would at least cause some difficulty oppressing people.
you get it
/looks around - That doesn't seem to be the case. A.I. has a better chance of repositioning the social locus of control.
Gun owners are literally the most cowardly people on the planet
Yous are scared of your own fucking shadows
"Whatcha scared of, coward?" "Uh, just other cowards is all" 😂
I don't own a gun. I'm from a country where it's not an option. To assume makes an ASS out of u and me.
Your point is bullshit. Not all people are good. Rapists exist. Serial killers exist. I'd like some options if I ever ran into one.
Imagine a world in which men could not own guns...
But women and intersex persons were given as many guns as they wanted for free.
What would it be like?
Probably better.
yes, only people with the luxury of owning guns could not understand the terror of being unarmed
just because conservatives fight for a right doesn't mean it's bad. this is the 1 thing conservatives are right about
the problem is liberals don't take this as opportunity to promote more female gun ownership and tactical training. a society of armed women is a society of women who will learn math and possess their own bodies
Afghanistan.
If ever there was a case for "more guns = more freedom", right?
Taliban or not, the peasants made it impossible for both Russia and the US to hold for any period of time using a pretty ancient rifle.
I think the IEDs, suicide bombers, and RPGs made a bigger difference in both cases
Well, of course it wasn't just the rifle. But my point was that low-tech armaments (and terrain to an extent) didn't make it a walk in the park no matter how high-tech your military. You still have to hold it.
the right to bear arms exists to protect people from tyrants
And yet, it’s the would-be tyrants who are armed to the teeth.
this is why more young feminists need to support gun ownership and learn how to use weapons
women should be able to choose what they want to wear, the type of weapons they want to own, and what to do with their bodies
the NRA needs to stop being thought of as conservative and liberals need to embrace the NRA
Why are you insisting we turn everything into an active war zone
Guns are for weak people who want to feel powerful.
guns are for vulnerable people who want to ensure their own safety.
Nice theory, but owning a gun makes you less safe, not more. You are way more likely to be hurt by your own gun than successfully using it to defend yourself.
you don't know my circumstances or anyone else's.
It has nothing to do with circumstances, it’s plain statistics. Look up the numbers.
your statistics don't know who i live with, who lives next door, or how corrupt my government is. and, as samuel clemons said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
What is it with Americans that they seem so be so afraid all the time. You see danger everywhere. Life now is safer than it has ever been in the history of humanity.
there you go again, assuming things you don't know about me.
So enlighten me.
How many people do you need to kill in self defence, in an average week?
there are more slaves now than ever in history. there are more prisoners, more prisons, more cartels, more police (but i repeat myself). i won't tell you how you may keep yourself safe. please return the courtesy.
All of those things are because there are way more humans today than ever in absolute numbers. The percentage of people who die a violent death has never been as low as it is now, and that includes people dying in war.
the right to bear arms exists to protect people from tyrants
Don't you have that backwards? Gun ownership is a luxury enjoyed by an enfranchised society enjoyed exclusively by people who don't feel threatened?
Because I remember a whole era of us domestic policy that revolved around targeting POC and other marginalized groups with gun regulation, while letting white nationalist groups run rampant.
Gun rights strike me as a political fiction. You only really get to enjoy them if you're not threatened by over-policing. As soon as you start asserting those rights against a government bureaucrat, they vanish.
i think there should be zero regulations on POC owning guns and all POC should have a natural right to ownership
Wouldn't it be nice...
The government has set up all mechanisms to target any resistance group trying to organise a violent revolution
Unless one man is going to take down the throne, guns will hardly achieve anything.
Conservatives in power currently want to take away a woman's right to a divorce. Your argument literally moves the Overton window to the right even further.
And giving tyrants access to a standing army is immoral in itself.
i disagree, but love the way you write, i wish i thought differently just so i could agree with someone who writes like this
i think we need women to be able to have access to weapons to prevent the hell of women being sold as chattel which happens in some countries. none of the women sold as chattel have good weapons.
if i were a hero, i would go to these places, even if it were alone, and likely to face torture and death, to try to free them
i don't do this because i am not a hero.
Bro thinks meal team six is going to stop the government lol. They are already taking our liberties. Why didn't guns save us during banning abortion? Why are guns not helping us defend our freedom of speech? Do you think some random authoritarian fucks are legitimately willing to fight the government over political differences? What liberties have they not taken already, or that they cannot take? If in some unrealistic scenario where the boomers won a small fight in some small town, do you think the government would just let them be? Do you not think the authoritarian fucks would use their guns to defend the government vs fight against it? They already use their votes to suppress our liberties, I have no doubt they'd choose to use their guns too.
"The ban was imposed by the Trump administration"
But please, gun enthusiasts, tell me again about how Biden is going to take away all of your guns any day now whereas Trump is 2A all the way.
Diaper Don, the "Take away their guns and worry about the due process later" guy? That Donald Trump, right?
Donald Trump, the convicted felon who admits he still has a gun he has not surrendered as is required of convicted felons?
Refresh my memory, was he talking about black people?
The comment was in this context:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second/
If memory serves, the Obama administration (the one far right was screaming for 8 years was going to take away all the guns) specifically looked at bump stocks and said they were legal.
Trump freaked out at the Las Vegas shooting and pushed the ban ASAP.
"Take away their guns and worry about the due process later”
Donald Trump.
Quoting that anti-constitution anti-gun president got me banned from a libertarian subreddit back in the day. I made it very clear I was against his position on blatantly violating the Fourth Amendment. I guess they were just extremely triggered by the quote?
There's quite a lot of people out there who don't actually have principles, they just have things they like and a team to root for.
Biden and the dems are not 2a friendly...but neither is any repub or trumpers. Both are true.
Rich people want to take away the ability of us poor commoners to resist their oppression and defend ourselves.
Yup, we all fight eaxh other for table scraps while they eat the full meal. Our fight shouldn't be us vs each other. It should be us vs them.
Edit: who the fuck is down voting this lol
In that case, it's weird that you're telling that to me and not the Trump person who replied to me who suggested the opposite.
Shouldn't you be replying to them?
Here, I'll help: https://lemmy.world/comment/10631441
Let me know when you've replied to them about it. (I won't be holding my breath.)
Apparently the way Lemmy's link creation works makes all first-level replies to your comment the same link AS your comment. So, in providing the link 'to be helpful', you only linked to your own comment. That's not actually helpful and so it doesn't come across in the best way.
And yet they knew what I was linking to because they, like me, know how Lemmy works. And you know they knew because they were talking about that post.
Oof. Nevermind, then. Tried to show you why being an asshole about it might have backfired, but keep being jaded!
Just FYI, I was responding to a libertarian regular who thinks there should essentially be no gun regulations.
Also, they're a bigot.
https://lemmy.world/comment/10611767
You might possibly be backing the wrong horse.
He can go kick rocks. I'm trying to help you.
From an outsider perspective, it looks like you told him to "go respond to this guy instead", but linked the same comment that it was already responding to. It was confusing and made you look like the asshole in the situation, which I'm trying to help prevent in the future.
I'm not sure how else to link to someone's post than to do it the only way Lemmy allows you to do it.
I read that as sarcasm for some reason
I see you have not responded to them about how Trump is not friendly toward the Second Amendment. Looks like I was correct to not have held my breath.
Again, maybe I'm reading it wrong but I thought their comment was sarcasm. The orange turnip is not a 2a advocate.
Maybe you should make sure they're aware of it just in case you're reading it wrong.
I doubt you will though. Please, do prove me incorrect on that.
bro look at the comment link you posted it is your comment link
That's how posting links in Lemmy works. It shows you the context, one link above yours.
Here is the link to the post you just made. Feel free to open it in a new tab and see I'm right: https://lemmy.world/comment/10639095
Probably best to know how Lemmy works before making such a silly criticism.
This one's just a dead link chief
Are you sure about that?
Clarence wants his cronies equipped.
And his appointed justices upheld the law.
Trump is not a friend of the 2nd. Anyone who thinks he is, is delusional. He was a big city NYC democrat for basically his entire life.
Ah, so that's proof of Trump's commitment to the Second Amendment- he violates it and then appoints justices to tell him so years later.
I can see why you're a gun-owning Trump fan.
Bumpstocks are oldshit in comparison to "super safeties." They push the trigger forward after you shoot. So you just squeeze, and you get quick individual trigger pulls at close to an automatic rate. It's also easier to aim. Also, it's a tiny piece you can 3d print. Also, I'm NOT linking it.
Hellfire triggers too...
https://hoffmantactical.com/designs/super-safety/
He said it, not me. I'd post it, but I like my dog.
Thanks stranger! I love Hoffman Tactical.
The ban on bump stocks was implemented using the Firearms' Owners Protection Act of 1986. Which was signed into law by Reagan (funny how a failed assassination will change things).
The text at issue is
IMO the majority in this decision is choosing to blatantly ignore the text of the act which was clearly chosen to future-proof for any advancement which would result in an effortless high rate of fire such as bump stock and super safety. Instead they are insisting that Congress must amend the law to include specific parts which of course is a losing battle as there will always be a new part that achieves an effortless high rate of fire.
Now where one could argue that this ruling is correct is the accepted definition of a machinegun requires a single trigger action.
26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)
Personally I think the laws should be amended to define weapons and munitions by their result (high or continuous rate of fire) instead of their form or function. As it stands, someone could create a weapon that simply fires continuously but does not resemble a gun in any other way. Would such a weapon be a machinegun if it doesn't even have a trigger?
I think the dissenting opinion was more inline with the intent of FOPA.
They don't need to ban specific parts, and in fact they shouldn't. They could ban anything designed to accelerate rate of fire.
I don't think anyone is going to build a triggerless pseudo-machine gun. You could build one where, when you close the action, it fires until it's out of ammo, but that's not very controllable. See also: slamfire.
That's exactly what they should do. But SCOTUS seems to think that the bump stock cannot be banned because there is no law about bump stocks specifically.
Bump stock still requires single function of the trigger. Might want to research how it actually works.
The entire logic of the Court's opinion rests on the fact that bump stocks still use a seperate trigger action per shot. They just cause the trigger to automatically trigger against a stationary finger instead of the shooter needing to manually actuate their trigger finger.
Is this an obtusely litteral reading of a law that was clearly intended to be more broadly interpreted? Probably. But it is a reading with a majority support on the court, so we are stuck with it until congress amends the law.
Isn't it that the trigger is squeezed once and the recoil causes the crock to bounce back which results in another trigger action? Even though there is only one action by the shooter, it would seem to be multiple trigger actions.
Correct. I mean, the thing was specifically designed to get high fire rates while technically keeping guns semi auto. That's why legislation is an arms race. You ban certain things, gun manufacturers design around it.
I contend that what a bump stock does is make the trigger the entire front half of the gun and your finger is merely a passive mechanical part. Like, you could replace your finger with a bent fork glued onto the bump stock and it would still function as intended. Your finger becomes the auto-sear, the entire front half of the rifle is the trigger.
I contend that what a bump stock does is make the trigger the entire front half of the gun and your finger is merely a passive mechanical part. Like, you could replace your finger with a bent fork glued onto the bump stock and it would still function as intended. Your finger becomes the auto-sear, the entire front half of the rifle is the trigger.
I'm all for gun control, though, I feel like banning bump stocks won't do much. Aren't they incredibly easy to make?
Yea, your belt loop makes a great one.
This one went over my head. Do you fire from the hip?
Yea, it's from the hip, but it shows that you don't need anything special to bump fire a gun.
Hell some guns will just kinda do it after awhile. M1 Garands do it with age relatively easily, mind you good luck with the accuracy automatic .308 was abandoned for a reason.
I don't think slam fire with stuck firing pins counts lol
One of my SKS's decided to do that shit and that was scary as fuck for the 2 seconds it lasted.
All you need for bumpfire to happen is hold the gun in such a manner that the recoil pushes the gun away from your finger and you pulling forward causes your finger to hit the trigger.
People use beltloops as a way to keep your finger stationary. There are plenty of YouTube videos on how to do a bumpfire.
So can hunter biden buy a bump stock now? I am shocked that the NRA was not representing hunter.
He probably could, but he can't buy a gun to put on it so what he's got is a funny shaped ineffective club.
Couldn't he join a gun club and get around that rule?
Of course they do. If it destabilizes society snd increases mortality in any way, its on their agenda
I got a bunch of leaves and my neighbor too. He's very rich. Can we please just burn all the leaves? The smoke will go east and there's nothing there, just a hospital and a premature baby nursery. I assume this is okay by the supreme court. Oh and we want to do it naked and we want to pop our guns into the fire. You know, for 4th of July stuff.
I'm confused. Are you planning to burn your rich neighbor as well, or just the leaves? SCOTUS is probably not on board with the former, but you'd get plenty of support on lemmy.
I am against burning people alive. I know controversial take.
Well if you all wanna eat the rich I suppose that's one way to do it. But they probably won't like it and it will be difficult.
The Supreme Court could find this but couldn't find abortion.
Ok then.
Bump stocks are largely irrelevant since the invention of Hellfire Triggers:
It's essentially a "bent piece of metal". I don't see how you could control that.
https://youtu.be/eUFkh7QKs1Q
Which can even be applied to pistols:
https://youtu.be/teoGHEPqd04
That video is talking about auto-sears which are illegal.
For once the Supreme Court makes the right call. Broken clocks and whatnot.
Is it the right call? What was the reason for the denial? Bump stocks are a work around to automatic laws isn't it?
The problem is the laws regulating automatics are absolutely idiotic, and automatic weapons are 100% legal to own, just kind of expensive. Not like "need to be a multi-millionaire" expensive, but "can afford to pay cash for a late-model used car".
Like most of our half-assed regulations, it doesn't actually do anything other than making it pay to play. We don't actually want to do anything that might prevent cops and their buddies from having a monopoly on force, so basically every gun law is moot for them anyway, even if they're buying them as private citizens.
That's one of the biggest concerns I have with the way we regulate firearms (among many other things) in the US, because they clearly aren't made with a mindset of "X thing is bad for society as a whole, we need to do something about it", it's "X thing is totally fine if you're in our special club, but the plebs are not allowed to have it.
I was initially against the ruling, but you just convinced me. The broken clock really was right this time.
Being "anti-gun" is almost universally actually just being "pro-gun-but-only-for-the-state" when you sit down and analyze it
When the police and army disarm themselves, then we'll talk
what a silly thing
I missed that part about bump stocks in the constitution.
e: Could someone please point it out for me?
I suppose the tenth amendment:
Unless prohibited by law, you have the power to do anything you like. As it probably says in the article, this needs to be law, not ATF opinion.
That wasn’t remotely the basis of the ruling. It was essentially ruled that they don’t meet the definition of a machine gun in the law, which limits what the ATF can do. It was mentioned that congress can amend the law and ban them. They just haven’t.
Right. And because Congress hasn't prohibited them, they're fair game.
I was talking more about the general principle of what is allowed versus prohibited than this specific case, though.
My point is, they did not rule a ban unconstitutional, since they asked where it was in the constitution.
I read it as asking where in the Constitution there is a right to bump stocks. Did you read as asking where the ban is?
And there is no constitutional right to bump stocks. They just ruled there is no current law against it. If there was a constitutional right to them, you couldn’t ban them even with a law.
I didn’t say he was asking where the ban is.
I think article 1 section 1 sums it up best
It's right there in the paragraph about nuclear weapons.
Trump is no longer the only president to actually do something about guns in the last 20 years.
Hey now, Obama "did something"... he expanded gun rights. :)
https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595
"One of the laws allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks; that law took effect in February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan's policy that required guns to be locked in glove compartments of trunks of cars that enter national parks.
Another gun law signed by Obama allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, a move that reversed a measure put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."
the right to bear arms exists to protect people from tyrants
the whole premise of this right is that we can't trust the government to keep our liberty safe because they could become the tyrants. if one day some religious idiot comes into power who doesn't want women learning math, you may end up glad that conservatives have made it easier for women to fight for their liberty by refusing to allow these rights to be eroded
Religious tyrants have gotten into power, they are forcing women into service as incubators. Nobody sane has taken up arms against the government. It is the "conservatives" who are fighting at the ballot box to erode our liberties and human rights.
"Conservatives" want to elect an openly racist demagogue who already committed a putsch and is asking SCOTUS to hand him a Long Knife.
LOL "conservatives" refusing to allow rights to be eroded. Yeah buddy, the women are going to force their way into math class holding the teacher at gunpoint.
things are bad now. it doesnt mean they cant get worse
I agree. Hopefully people don't vote for the "conservatives" who do keep making everything worse.
I'll remind my daughter next time she calls me having a panic attack during an active shooter lockdown that at least she still has the right to
love who she wantsmake her own reproductive healthcare choicesget IVF if she can't have kidsbe open and honest about who she isteach your daughter to use weapons, allow weapons in schools, and let her destroy anyone who attacks her.
i am sorry religious idiots are taking away her rights. these idiots are luring in many supporters because they support the second amendment. liberals need to start being pro-gun and get these religious idiots out of power
Are we in a civilized society, or a warzone?
This is a complete fiction, a true American mythology that exists in the modern day.
The right to bear arms was more about homestead defense against indigenous natives and foreign invading armies than it was for any kind of poison pill for Americans to topple their own government if they woke up one day and decided they don't like who's in charge anymore. The very notion that the founders would set up a new system of governance but be okay with the idea of baking in gun ownership rights to ensure that the people will always be able to conduct a violent insurrection as the vehicle for regime change is absurd.
Everybody likes to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of that amendment, conveniently ignoring that a well regulated militia would answer to the state or the federal government, the very force of tyranny that they claim they need the guns to defend themselves against.
Conservatives would be the first to call anyone participating in the uprising unamerican and would be more likely to form reactionary militias supportive of the fascist government than to overthrow anything
Hadis Najafi was a feminist. A world hero. I hope one day in a brave new feminist world, she has a holiday. I wish I had met her. I'd give anything to have met her. I don't believe in an afterlife, but if heaven were real I would get to meet her. How can one person be so courageous?
She fought without being armed because she was a hero and she couldn't not fight. She had enough and said fuck it, I know I'm going to die and don't care. Although she said "I like to think that when I think about this a few years later I'll be pleased I joined the protest" I believe a part of her new she could die, I think this was something she said to comfort herself. Heroes fight even when the odds aren't great. I wish I could become a good and courageous person like her.
You think it's bad now?
Don't be myopic. This is a woman who would have been a hero with our without weapons, but she could have done more if she had the right to bare arms.
Yes, it matters and the NRA matters and feminism matters and the solution is making sure women have more and larger guns and better tactical training.
No the NRA doesn't matter, right wing support of weapons doesn't matter. The left wing support of weapons matters.
Is there such a thing? Is there a left wing organization battling for the rights of women to own any weapon she pleases? If so, please enlighten me on this.
Unsurprisingly the political organization whose power comes from private funding is the one backing right wing fascist bullshit. You're not going to find a left wing organization with the same resources because it won't have corporate political backing.
Anarchists and other leftists (leftists, not liberals) are typically pro-gun and for the reasons you mention
one day, in a world full of female scientists who rule the world, it may become irrelevant, an anachronistic right that no one even really uses
I agree with the first part. It was supposed to be a check and balance to government power and oppression. It gives people the power to fight back against injustice.
However, in the time of intercontinental missiles, planes, tanks, and remote operated drones, are a bunch of peasants with guns actually going to do anything if the government turned on its people? Does the "right to bear arms" not extend to other, non-gun weapons?
Yeah, you're bringing guns to an unmanned drone fight.
Guns would at least cause some difficulty oppressing people.
you get it
/looks around - That doesn't seem to be the case. A.I. has a better chance of repositioning the social locus of control.
Gun owners are literally the most cowardly people on the planet
Yous are scared of your own fucking shadows
"Whatcha scared of, coward?" "Uh, just other cowards is all" 😂
I don't own a gun. I'm from a country where it's not an option. To assume makes an ASS out of u and me.
Your point is bullshit. Not all people are good. Rapists exist. Serial killers exist. I'd like some options if I ever ran into one.
Imagine a world in which men could not own guns...
But women and intersex persons were given as many guns as they wanted for free.
What would it be like?
Probably better.
yes, only people with the luxury of owning guns could not understand the terror of being unarmed
just because conservatives fight for a right doesn't mean it's bad. this is the 1 thing conservatives are right about
the problem is liberals don't take this as opportunity to promote more female gun ownership and tactical training. a society of armed women is a society of women who will learn math and possess their own bodies
Afghanistan.
If ever there was a case for "more guns = more freedom", right?
Taliban or not, the peasants made it impossible for both Russia and the US to hold for any period of time using a pretty ancient rifle.
I think the IEDs, suicide bombers, and RPGs made a bigger difference in both cases
Well, of course it wasn't just the rifle. But my point was that low-tech armaments (and terrain to an extent) didn't make it a walk in the park no matter how high-tech your military. You still have to hold it.
And yet, it’s the would-be tyrants who are armed to the teeth.
this is why more young feminists need to support gun ownership and learn how to use weapons
women should be able to choose what they want to wear, the type of weapons they want to own, and what to do with their bodies
the NRA needs to stop being thought of as conservative and liberals need to embrace the NRA
Why are you insisting we turn everything into an active war zone
Guns are for weak people who want to feel powerful.
guns are for vulnerable people who want to ensure their own safety.
Nice theory, but owning a gun makes you less safe, not more. You are way more likely to be hurt by your own gun than successfully using it to defend yourself.
you don't know my circumstances or anyone else's.
It has nothing to do with circumstances, it’s plain statistics. Look up the numbers.
your statistics don't know who i live with, who lives next door, or how corrupt my government is. and, as samuel clemons said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
What is it with Americans that they seem so be so afraid all the time. You see danger everywhere. Life now is safer than it has ever been in the history of humanity.
there you go again, assuming things you don't know about me.
So enlighten me.
How many people do you need to kill in self defence, in an average week?
there are more slaves now than ever in history. there are more prisoners, more prisons, more cartels, more police (but i repeat myself). i won't tell you how you may keep yourself safe. please return the courtesy.
All of those things are because there are way more humans today than ever in absolute numbers. The percentage of people who die a violent death has never been as low as it is now, and that includes people dying in war.
Don't you have that backwards? Gun ownership is a luxury enjoyed by an enfranchised society enjoyed exclusively by people who don't feel threatened?
Because I remember a whole era of us domestic policy that revolved around targeting POC and other marginalized groups with gun regulation, while letting white nationalist groups run rampant.
Gun rights strike me as a political fiction. You only really get to enjoy them if you're not threatened by over-policing. As soon as you start asserting those rights against a government bureaucrat, they vanish.
i think there should be zero regulations on POC owning guns and all POC should have a natural right to ownership
Wouldn't it be nice...
The government has set up all mechanisms to target any resistance group trying to organise a violent revolution
Unless one man is going to take down the throne, guns will hardly achieve anything.
Conservatives in power currently want to take away a woman's right to a divorce. Your argument literally moves the Overton window to the right even further.
And giving tyrants access to a standing army is immoral in itself.
i disagree, but love the way you write, i wish i thought differently just so i could agree with someone who writes like this
i think we need women to be able to have access to weapons to prevent the hell of women being sold as chattel which happens in some countries. none of the women sold as chattel have good weapons.
if i were a hero, i would go to these places, even if it were alone, and likely to face torture and death, to try to free them
i don't do this because i am not a hero.
Bro thinks meal team six is going to stop the government lol. They are already taking our liberties. Why didn't guns save us during banning abortion? Why are guns not helping us defend our freedom of speech? Do you think some random authoritarian fucks are legitimately willing to fight the government over political differences? What liberties have they not taken already, or that they cannot take? If in some unrealistic scenario where the boomers won a small fight in some small town, do you think the government would just let them be? Do you not think the authoritarian fucks would use their guns to defend the government vs fight against it? They already use their votes to suppress our liberties, I have no doubt they'd choose to use their guns too.