╌>

Supreme Court overturns Trump-era ban on bump stocks

  
Via:  Jeremy in NC  •  one month ago  •  43 comments

By:   President Donald Trump (New York Post)

Supreme Court overturns Trump-era ban on bump stocks
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that a ban on bump stocks — attachments that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more quickly— implemented by former President Donald Trump back in 2017 was unconstitutional.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Today's America

Today's America


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The Supreme Court ruled Friday that a ban on bump stocks — attachments that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more quickly — implemented by President Donald Trump in 2017 was unconstitutional.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had overstepped its authority by classifying bump stocks as illegal machine guns.

"We conclude that semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a 'machinegun' [sic]," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, "because it does not fire more than one shot 'by a single function of the trigger.'"

"Even if a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock could fire more than one shot 'by a single function of the trigger,'" Thomas went on, "it would not do so 'automatically.'"

The Trump administration instituted the bump stock ban following the Oct. 1, 2017, mass shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas that killed 60 people and wounded hundreds more.

A Texas gun store owner, Michael Cargill, had challenged the regulation.


Red Box Rules

Calling members trolls or dishonest will cause your comments to be deleted.

Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted.

Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.

No "MAGA", Fascism References, Memes


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago

There is going to be a lot of people upset about this.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1    one month ago

There is going to be a lot of people upset about this.

I don't really understand why bump stocks is a SCOTUS issue in the 1st place.  There are lots of products that are banned in the US.

'Banned in the USA' Foods From Around the World Banned in America

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    one month ago

I don't know either.  If I remember it correctly, the claim was that a "bump stock" turns a semi-automatic (one munition fired with one trigger pull) firearm into a "machine gun" (multiple munitions fired with one trigger pull).  It would take more modification to the firearm than just adding a bump stock to do that.  The claim, obviously is false (along with many other firearms claims).  

I've never needed or wanted a bump stock for any of my semi-automatic firearms.  I've seen them used and wasn't impressed in the least.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    one month ago
I don't really understand why bump stocks is a SCOTUS issue in the 1st place. 

Basically because it was a citizen who followed the legal path when filing a suit against the government. He spent five years going through the legal process to get this up to SCOTUS. 

Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, sued the government after he was forced to surrender several "bump stocks" under the ATF's rule. He argued the agency overstepped its administrative authority to impose a ban, absent any congressional action.

"Over five years ago I swore I would defend the Constitution of the United States, even if I was the only plaintiff in the case. I did just that," Cargill, an Army veteran, said Friday. 

Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance and lawyer for Cargill, praised Friday's ruling as having vindicated "our client’s position that ATF does not have the power to rewrite criminal laws."

"The statute Congress passed did not ban bump stocks, and ATF does not have the power to do so on its own. This result is completely consistent with the Constitution’s assignment of all legislative power to Congress. Any scare-mongering by bump-stock opponents should be directed at Congress, not the Court, which faithfully applied the statute in front of it," said Chenoweth.

Supreme Court strikes down federal ban on bump stocks | Fox News

First off I'm not a fan of bump stocks and do not / would not own any. I've seen barrels of guns after such an item has been used, it IMO trashes the gun. IMO anybody who demands such an item is first and foremost an idiot who should not own firearms in the first place. Most civilian firearms are not built to withstand the heat of that high rate of fire. I value my guns much more than to deliberately trash them.

But I'm also not a fan of how bureaucrats, in the absence of Congress passing laws, have taken more authority onto themselves then they are supposed to have. Congress is supposed to make laws, not bureaucrats. The offices are not elected officials but employees of the federal government and as such should be running their offices under the laws set up.  We see way too many offices doing this on all walks of life. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.2    one month ago
Basically because it was a citizen who followed the legal path when filing a suit against the government.

That's fine, but SCOTUS does not take up every case that gets up to their level.  SCOTUS's job is to interpret the Constitution and how it relates to the case.  America has been able to ban products and foods for centuries, so that right has been set in stone (for the most part).  So my question is why is this even a thing for them to look at? 

How are "bump stocks" specifically protected by the Constitution???

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.4  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    one month ago
How are "bump stocks" specifically protected by the Constitution???

Did you bother to read the link? It stated not that this was a constitutionally protected item, but that Congress had long defined what was a 'machinegun' and just adding a 'bump stock' did not make a semi-automatic weapon a machinegun. Just as you cannot just put lipstick on a pig and call her a woman.

It seems quite clear that the 'constitutionality' of the case was a governmental office expanding their 'duties' beyond what they are constitutionally allowed to do. Laws are made by Congress, not any governmental office. By declaring 'bump stocks' illegal, they attempted to create a law that they are not able to do. 

SCOTUS does review each case that is brought before them. Some they decide to hear and many they decide to allow the lower court ruling to remain as the last statement because they feel that is sufficient. You may not like some of the cases they decide to hear, but that's their decision and yours and my opinions do not matter in that regard. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.1.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    one month ago

How are "bump stocks" specifically protected by the Constitution???

They aren't, the issue is that the 'ban' was by Executive Action, not legislation.
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.4    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.4    one month ago
It stated not that this was a constitutionally protected item, but that Congress had long defined what was a 'machinegun' and just adding a 'bump stock' did not make a semi-automatic weapon a machinegun. Just as you cannot just put lipstick on a pig and call her a woman.

So because they tried to include it in the "machine gun" ban, instead of banning it as an individual item, SCOTUS kicked it?

It seems quite clear that the 'constitutionality' of the case was a governmental office expanding their 'duties' beyond what they are constitutionally allowed to do.

I have not had time to read the link, but that does not sound correct.

Laws are made by Congress, not any governmental office. By declaring 'bump stocks' illegal, they attempted to create a law that they are not able to do.

Again, your summary does not sound correct.  It sounds more like the office decided that bump stocks turned it into a "machine gun" and SCOTUS is saying that they cannot make that decision.

SCOTUS does review each case that is brought before them.

No they don't, individual justices do.  SCOTUS is the whole and the whole does not make that determination on each case.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.7    one month ago
It stated not that this was a constitutionally protected item, but that Congress had long defined what was a 'machinegun' and just adding a 'bump stock' did not make a semi-automatic weapon a machinegun. Just as you cannot just put lipstick on a pig and call her a woman.
So because they tried to include it in the "machine gun" ban, instead of banning it as an individual item, SCOTUS kicked it?
It seems quite clear that the 'constitutionality' of the case was a governmental office expanding their 'duties' beyond what they are constitutionally allowed to do.

I have not had time to read the link, but that does not sound correct.

Laws are made by Congress, not any governmental office. By declaring 'bump stocks' illegal, they attempted to create a law that they are not able to do.

Again, your summary does not sound correct.  It sounds more like the office decided that bump stocks turned it into a "machine gun" and SCOTUS is saying that they cannot make that decision.

Again, go read the fucking article before you respond back. I'll even point it out here...

The U.S. Supreme Court   on Thursday   ruled that a bump stock does not transform a firearm into an automatic weapon, striking down a federal rule that banned bump stocks. 

In a 6-3 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "Congress has long restricted access to "'machinegun[s],'" a category of firearms defined by the ability to "shoot, automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger." 

"Semiautomatic firearms, which require shooters to reengage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns. This case asks whether a bump stock — an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire) — converts the rifle into a 'machinegun.' We hold that it does not," he wrote. 

Supreme Court strikes down federal ban on bump stocks | Fox News

They tried to call a semi-automatic weapon a 'machinegun' because of the addition of a bump stock. However, it's quite clear in how Congress has defined it all along that a machinegun automatically fires more than one shot by a single action of the trigger. While a bump stock does allow for a high rate of fire, it does so by forcing the trigger to be pulled quickly, but it is still a semi-automatic weapon in that each pull of the trigger will only fire one bullet. 

SCOTUS does review each case that is brought before them.
No they don't, individual justices do.  SCOTUS is the whole and the whole does not make that determination on each case.

BFD..  the rules are set to allow each individual justice to review and recommend that SCOTUS will take up a case. It's equal ability for every member of SCOTUS, therefor by that understanding SCOTUS does review each case. You want to quibble over such details? Yet you want to allow that a bump stock that allows a semi-automatic to pull the trigger very fast is a machinegun. You're trying to have your way on both sides. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    one month ago
"There are lots of products that are banned in the US."

Has Janet Yellin banned Chinese food yet?  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.8    one month ago
BFD..  the rules are set to allow each individual justice to review and recommend that SCOTUS will take up a case.

Thank you for confirming my statement.  SCOTUS as a whole does NOT decide which cases to allow.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.10    one month ago

yes it does. If at least 4 Justices want to hear a case, it is accepted by SCOTUS.

Thousands of petitions for hearings  roll in through the court’s electronic filing system, by mail, or in person. The justices’ clerks, top legal positions usually held by recent law school graduates, write a summary of each petition, along with a recommendation about what the court should do about it. On Wednesdays and Fridays, the justices gather in a private conference to make a decision. If at least four of the nine justices vote in favor of accepting it, the court will hear the case.   How the Supreme Court Decides Which Cases to Hear | The Pew Charitable Trusts (pewtrusts.org)
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.12  CB  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.2    one month ago
But I'm also not a fan of how bureaucrats, in the absence of Congress passing laws, have taken more authority onto themselves then they are supposed to have. Congress is supposed to make laws, not bureaucrats. The offices are not elected officials but employees of the federal government and as such should be running their offices under the laws set up.  We see way too many offices doing this on all walks of life. 

The point is well said. Nevertheless, congress is too embroiled in CYA mode and worry about GOP 'score-cards' about what positions they take than to stand on a basis principle that saves (a) human life. That sucks for us all. 

Justice Thomas' dedication to originalism (if that is his motivation) is one thing; opening society up to more violence, mayhem, and death is another. 

It has not escaped me that mass shooting (especially at schools) has not been in the media 'excessively' this year. That's great. 

However, now SCOTUS has touched the 'red-hot' subject of guns (again) and we are left to see if it stirs a hornet's nest of 'missing' gun massacres in our country. . . the year is still 'young.'

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.13  Split Personality  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.2    one month ago
First off I'm not a fan of bump stocks and do not / would not own any. I've seen barrels of guns after such an item has been used, it IMO trashes the gun. IMO anybody who demands such an item is first and foremost an idiot who should not own firearms in the first place. Most civilian firearms are not built to withstand the heat of that high rate of fire. I value my guns much more than to deliberately trash them

100% agreement, but the instigator in Las Vegas was on a suicide mission, it seems.

But I'm also not a fan of how bureaucrats, in the absence of Congress passing laws, have taken more authority onto themselves then they are supposed to have.

That's awfully harsh on Mr. Trump.. It was one of the few bipartisan things he did right for the country

and even Alito said he supported the action but voted no because the language was sloppy.

He gave the ATF specific language to use and according to SCOTUS their lawyers blew it by using flawed language.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.14  Snuffy  replied to  CB @1.1.12    one month ago
But I'm also not a fan of how bureaucrats, in the absence of Congress passing laws, have taken more authority onto themselves then they are supposed to have. Congress is supposed to make laws, not bureaucrats. The offices are not elected officials but employees of the federal government and as such should be running their offices under the laws set up.  We see way too many offices doing this on all walks of life. 
The point is well said. Nevertheless, congress is too embroiled in CYA mode and worry about GOP 'score-cards' about what positions they take than to stand on a basis principle that saves (a) human life. That sucks for us all. 

I do wish for a minute you would stop with the partisan slant and admit that both parties do the exact same thing. Yes Congress is fucked up and more interested in their allegiance to party rather than the people they are there to represent. The issue is not just GOP score cards, both parties do the same shit and then just try to cast the blame on the other side. Or are you forgetting when Pelosi came out of a White House meeting with Trump and stated she would not give Trump a win with his infrastructure bill before an election?

However, now SCOTUS has touched the 'red-hot' subject of guns (again) and we are left to see if it stirs a hornet's nest of 'missing' gun massacres in our country. . . the year is still 'young.'

I disagree with you on this line however. This case IMO was more about the unelected bureaucrat attempting to create laws rather than just the issue of guns. It is not the function of a bureaucrat to create laws, it's their job to run their offices based on the laws defined and created by Congress. Now if Congress won't do it's job then it's the duty of the citizenry to elect better representatives who will. Unfortunately it seems as if the idiots who are voting are instead voting for the extremists. And please, before you point out MTG please note that there are idiots on the other side as well. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.15  Snuffy  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.13    one month ago

I don't think it's harsh on Trump at all. But then I'm not a fan of governing via EO's. I want a Congress who works for the people. And I'm old enough to remember when that actually seemed to happen. Yes there was graft and partisan crap but there was also many more who did compromise and work to better the country. That day does seem dead today.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.16  CB  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.14    one month ago
I do wish for a minute you would stop with the partisan slant and admit that both parties do the exact same thing.

Maybe so, but it is my experience (limited to what I read mostly happening in D.C. policy and across the country) that the two parties do not do 'similarly' to the same degrees. That has to be accounted for in discussion! 

Snuffy, when some conservatives 'ease' up on their paternal tendencies and disregard for liberals. . . I will be the first to applaud them for coming around. But until them: I, like you, call it the way I see it being. I am not dedicated to slamming some conservatives. . . but, they need to leave others the hell alone to their freedoms to not be conservative (as I write this Majorie Taylor Green, a some conservative, is on my television lying about this upcoming election being stolen when all eyes (especially MAGAs) have plenty time to engage the processes and see that it is not!). 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.17  Split Personality  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.15    one month ago

Agreed, gone are the days when everyone followed Tip Oneil to the bar for drinks.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.16    one month ago
Maybe so, but it is my experience (limited to what I read mostly happening in D.C. policy and across the country) that the two parties do not do 'similarly' to the same degrees. That has to be accounted for in discussion! 

Do the acts bother you, or just the degree?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.19  CB  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.14    one month ago

I'm sorry, MTG and her MAGAs are packed at the 'front' that I can not see all the way to the 'back' to the moderates acting like extremists (trying to get too many undeserved rights and privileges). 

The issue is somebody, 'anybody' with authority needs to save those getting injured and killed by mass attacks! If congress won't do it; then we have to plead the case to the NEXT open authority figures. . . even if it results in ONLY TEMPORARY relief!

At least we had some peace even if we don't fully know why it came to be so this year (so far).

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @1.1.19    one month ago
f congress won't do it; then we have to plead the case to the NEXT open authority figures. . . even if it results in ONLY TEMPORARY relief!

So you believe the President has the authority to override the Constitution whenever he thinks the situation demands it.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.21  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.18    one month ago

I don't do MAGAs' questions. It never ends well. Just make a statement and I will respond accordingly.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.22  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.20    one month ago

I don't follow that logic. Of course, I am writing about pragmatic solutions to long-standing 'injuries' in law to living persons/groups. Just stalling people's liberties, privileges, and humanity just because - is not acceptable. Using the constitution to hold people in abeyance for the sake of a stalled congress (one side or the other) is MORALLY WRONG. We are not machines that are obligated to accept a document which can be found (at times) to just be manipulated to hurt some (minorities, mostly) by 'wise' scoundrels. In the past, we have countless cases where the constitution was used to benefit supremacy while causing undue deficiency for those whom supremacists do not wish to see advance in our mutually shared country. 

Therefore, the constitution and statutory law ought to be obligated to serve people and not people to serve the constitution. And if I may indulge it: Jesus said something similarly about the old testament law: 'The law was meant for people; not the people for law.' (Or words to that effect.)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @1.1.22    one month ago
don't follow that logic. Of course, I am writing about pragmatic solutions to long-standing 'injuries' in law to living persons/groups.

that's what every apologist for a dictator argues, from Napoleon, to Mussolini to Hitler. That democratic institutions aren't working to protect  the people, therefore an executive who just issues orders on the people's behalf is needed. When you argue the President must act when Congress won't, you are doing the exact same thing. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.24  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.23    one month ago

I have no idea what you are talking about. You yourself watch Donald issue EOs (though, I am more focused on the courts helping to give 'relief' when congress sits on its 'hands' using manipulation of the rules to stall out good for others not of their political viewpoint) to advance a policy prescription. 

Alert! I have to run. The statement (above) may not be fully thought out or explained by me. More later if needed to clarify. ;)

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.25  Snuffy  replied to  CB @1.1.16    4 weeks ago
two parties do not do 'similarly' to the same degrees.

Agree to disagree. Neither party holds back on their partisanship as both parties are first and foremost beholden to their respective parties. And until the two party system is broken and removed from the equation, I don't expect this will change as there's too much power and money tied up in the parties. 

But IMO you are very much one-sided in your criticism as both parties are just as bad. Perhaps it's where you find your news that you read as the mainstream media system is also so very broken and provide the content that they decide based on their bias. 

With that said, I do hope we can continue on with our conversations, we have had some good conversations in the past. As for myself, I came to this board in the hopes of speaking with differently minded people and seeing other perspectives. It's a shame that so much of what is posted is so very one-sided.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.21    4 weeks ago

okay, you seem more concerned with the degree than the actual act.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.27  CB  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.25    4 weeks ago

The two chief political parties are in a fight for the 'soul' of America. I get it. However, I will be only two happy when they both put down this offensive 'past-time' of theirs, because every four years of this "takeover" attempt at dominance by conservatives and pushback from liberals (I have to participate on this side of the line because of my background and my believes in freedoms not for some but for all). 

Listen! I truly don't care what some conservatives do as long as it does not destroy the quality of life of people who are not conservative. Let everybody enjoy their 'wants' and desires—when it causes no harm to others. That is my principled position.

I am not as one-sided as you imagine. I view myself as a pragmatist-foremost. This, I have a strong affinity for moderate politicians. As far as Donald goes-he left me when he decided to come out swinging for the other side against freedoms, privileges, and truth (for all). 

Honestly, as a Christian, I have no intention of being overly 'governed' by any Church 'authority,' doctrine, or belief. I am actually "suspended" in my faith right now because of the latest war in Israel and Gaza has exposed something about these participants and combatants that is something but not to be perceived as holy. Still, I am in a holding pattern where nothing significant about me as a person has changed in years. But I am doing a serious look see at what the "heaven"  or 'hell" is going on with people in the ME if they can't fix their own local/state problems. . . how the heck can they be models of two world religions? (Rhetorical question.)

Finally, I appreciate your kindness to address our conversations as useful, constructive, maybe instructive—mutually. That said, I am beginning to see you as somewhat different from the conservative 'pack' on NT. :) I can appreciate your worth, too! ;) Even lend into it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.28  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.26    4 weeks ago

Yes. I have to go to degrees in these situations for as you know I can not control anything leaders do in D.C. or anywhere else for that matter. I see Senator Menendez and Rep. Cuellar one indicted and another with house searches by F.B.I. officers (?), respectively. I can see the crossover of positions, policies, and even professional offenses that lead congressional individuals on both sides of the aisle to face search, arrest, and jury trials.

The difference then is more observable in the degrees to which the parties are intent on hurting ordinary janes and joes by the professional stances and policies they support. Liberals simply want more freedoms, etceteras; MAGAs are actively seeking (in my opinion) to oppress liberals under the guise of being persecuted - even though it is becoming clearer every day which side is working to oppress the other. My liberties, privileges, and right to 'execute' my life-apart from harming others should not be stifled or messed with by those I call "some Conservatives" this verbiage helps avoid over-generalizing. Something that is looked down on (and can get a comment in part or wholly removed from the list.) That is the reason I came up with such verbiage. 

Final example:  At this stage of my life I would prefer a younger set, mind you set, of competitors for the office of president. But, we have the two choices that appear destined. Nobody in charge of selecting party candidates asked me my opinion and I presume it is too late to care about my opinion at this point.  So, I must look at other deciding factors other than age (they are both elderly men). That leads me to judging them by degrees overall.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.29  Snuffy  replied to  CB @1.1.27    4 weeks ago
The two chief political parties are in a fight for the 'soul' of America.

This is the only statement in your post that I disagree with. Sure, the two parties wrap it up all pretty by saying they are fighting for the soul, but in all honesty all they are doing is working to expand their ability to grab more power and money. That IMO is what politics has come down to. And because there's so much money and power involved, the only way they will give it up is if they are forced to. But that fight would be so ugly, I'm not sure what it would do to this country. I think at best it would only divide the country into two separate countries. At worst...  oy

I truly don't care what some conservatives do as long as it does not destroy the quality of life of people who are not conservative. Let everybody enjoy their 'wants' and desires—when it causes no harm to others. That is my principled position.

I read this and the first thing I thought of was that this sounded very Republican to me. Old school Republican that is. Wanna be careful, someone may want you to start wearing a red tie.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

Have a good evening (and a good weekend as it's Saturday). 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.30  CB  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.29    4 weeks ago
I read this and the first thing I thought of was that this sounded very Republican to me.

I am guilty of being a pragmatist. Even voted for Reagan and George W. Bush for at least one term each. I vote. And when I do I vote the candidate that is good for 'everybody' in my opinion-not just a party. Donald Trump is not good for 'everybody' as his politics is even designed and executed with toxicity in mind. Whatever bad can be said about Biden, no one can question "the old geezer's" heart is coming from a good place.

I vote my conscience. I stand by it-I don't hide my moderation in discussion. I take what I believe to be a principled position. Donald Trump lies every time I see him (to me indirectly). That offends me that he would think of (me) the citizenry as that damn gullible. I detest brazen liars, because it costs something to stand up for the truth and what is right.  He tries to power through it and trample on those who lose to his delusions. Apparently, Donald's skill at lying has served him well as he finds plenty of support in all the high places to help him get out of a liar's 'due.' But, again, he has gained nothing and in fact has lost aplenty with not just me (who only has a vote he may be interested in), but with thousands of others who like me have some skill (and power) with the pen.

Evening and good night, Snuffy. This interaction with you has been a pleasure.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1    one month ago
"There is going to be a lot of people upset about this."

There are going to be a lot more people dead because of this.  But hey, it's okay, the Second Amendment exists to make sure 'America doesn't become overpopulated.  One might call it an environmental asset. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2    one month ago

This case had zero to do with the second amendment. It's not even mentioned in the decision. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.1    one month ago

I really don't care that it had nothing to do with the decision.  As far as I'm concerned, my opinion about the Second Amendment stands, and corrupt Justice Thomas, who takes bribes (maybe unreported ones from the gun industry are still possible), can protect Americans' right to kill each other all day long, as long as they stay away from my family in Milwuakee.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2.2    one month ago
eally don't care that it had nothing to do with the decision

Odd that would be what you talk about in reference to the decision then. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.3    one month ago

It's on my mind all the time.  I fear for the fact that my only grandchildren go to schools in America, and that my son is a target, more so these days than ever before. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.2.5  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2    4 weeks ago
There are going to be a lot more people dead because of this.

That's your opinion.  Did you read the article?  Do you have any knowledge of firearms?  

But hey, it's okay, the Second Amendment exists to make sure 'America doesn't become overpopulated.

The decision has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.  But don't let that stop your feelings and opinion clouding that.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.5    4 weeks ago
Do you have any knowledge of firearms?  

I was my high school's rifle marksman champion, shooting 10 perfect bullseyes in a row with a WW2 rifle adapted to 22 ammo, and no scope,  Previously I've posted more than once here a photo of my receiving the trophy for doing so, that had appeared in my city's newspaper, but I've lost my photos when my 15-year old computer died. 

Notwithstanding that the only guns I ever owned myself were a water pistol and a cap gun when I was a little kid. I never wanted a gun, nor has anyone in my family ever wanted a gun.

The decision has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.  But don't let that stop your feelings and opinion clouding that.

The article has to do with guns in America and that's good enough for me to consider the Second Amendment to not be off topic.   In fact, because of the news I read on Microsoft Bing News this morning (yes, I do get to read American news sources) I intend to post a story I saw there on my presently dormant group about American Gun Violence, a group I know is not very popular with a lot of members here.  I guess I haven't bothered posting on it for a long time because gun violence in America isn't news at all, it's everyday life in America.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.2.7  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2.6    4 weeks ago
The article has to do with guns in America and that's good enough for me to consider the Second Amendment to not be off topic. 

And it still has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.  One would think that somebody that was on she marksman team, one would understand what a "bump stock" does and doesn't do and what is at play here.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.7    4 weeks ago

Why should I have known what a "bump stock" was when I was a marksman during the 1950s?  We didn't need to shoot shot after shot with quick speed to shoot targets.  For quite a while bump stocks were banned or controlled, were they not?  Was it not because it enabled shooters to shoot with shots following faster and more quickly after each shot?  Faster means that in a shorter time you can kill more people, during a set period of time, does it not?  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Again, I don't understand. The "Trump Justices" in the Trump Court are supposed to do whatever Trump wants, and here they are finding one of his executive orders unconstitutional. 

Bizarre.

Even sadder are the Democrats in Congress who accuse the Court of legislating from the bench.  How stupid do you have to be to argue that?  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3  Tacos!    one month ago

Bump stocks are a stupid addition to a firearm, unless your goal is to just go out to the desert or the woods and do something silly with a gun.

The hysteria over bump stocks as some kind of “machine gun” or WMD is also stupid. I can’t imagine trying to hit anything I was aiming at using one of those things. And yeah, the guy in Vegas had them, but he also had like a couple dozen guns, a shitload of ammo, a highly advantageous position, and a broad target area stuffed with people. He could have thrown a back of rocks out the window and he still would have hit a bunch of people.

 
 

Who is online



20 visitors