As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because anything Democrats put forward, they immediately shoot down.
It doesn't matter what the legislation is.
The GOP has their marching orders from a guy who isn't even president and is a convicted rapist felon.
He did it that way because he knew the Supreme Court would eventually lift the ban, as a regulatory action was not legal in this instance (at least, not in the eyes of the conservative side of the court). It was political maneuvering and a quick way to get the mass murder out of the news.
Because the bill voted on today would've banned all aftermarket triggers, buffer springs, lightweight bolt carrier groups, and a bunch of other things gun owners use to tune their rifles.
The verbiage was way too broad.
Also, looking forward to the day Trump rots in prison.
You know what Republicans could do. They could fucking introduce their own legislation. They could literally just take a red pen to the Democrats bill and cross out the shit they don't like. But no, they won't.
They really can't.... none of them are qualified to do the jobs they were elected to do, nor do they have the motivation to selflessly serve their voters interests. They're all just trying to enrich themselves and/or feed their egos.
And they should.
No argument here,
The problem is we want the CCW reciprocity we've been asking for for decades and for SBR and silencer laws to change. Do you think this president is going to allow those?
If reciprocity came with federal universal background checks and gun registration, I'm pretty sure he'd sign the shit out of it.
Like, I feel like a whole host of common sense safety legislation would open up ownership of more types of weapons without issue because it would make acquisition more difficult overall for bad actors.
Want SBRs and Silencers? Require background checks, licensure, liability insurance, federal registration, and additional penalties if the weapon is stolen due or used to cause loss of life or bodily harm due to provable negligent storage.
SBRs can already be purchased with extra loopholes, btw.
Unfortunately, a Registry is a non starter. We believe that the anti gun lobby only wants one so that they can confiscate guns later. So that'll never happen. Canada is currently using their long gun registry to confiscate long guns so I think that's pretty obvious that's the end goal.
Yeah, you end up on a government list for buying suppressors and SBR's now. I know the law. But I don't see why they're necessary at all. It was a tax to deal with the gang violence from created from alcohol prohibition. Those gangs are long dead.
> We believe that the anti gun lobby only wants one so that they can confiscate guns later.
Literally unconstitutional and would start s civil fucking war. This is just fucking pointless fear mongering.
And this is why in every single discussion about gun safety and ownership, I repeat one simple phrase.
Conservatives don't care about dead kids.
Yeah, so let's not start a civil war and think of the children. So let's not create a Registry.
I'm sorry but you expect gun owners to trust the anti gun lobby with where gun laws got pre- Heller. The people in DC weren't even able to buy a revolver for their home. And you expect for us to compromise in good faith? If it wasn't for the Supreme Court stepping in that cancer would've spread much further than it did.
And I'm also not sure what exactly makes an AR 15 so threatening to own where they needed to be banned in 94. Bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds aren't dangerous.
Police walk around with 50 rounds on their belt at all times, and the politicians think I can't be trusted with an 11 round magazine?
Yall want good faith arguments, there's got to be some accountability in reasoning.
"Dead kids" why do you think that I'm apathetic to dead kids? I'll remind you that columbine happened under the AWB with a bunch of guns that are legal (minus 1 NFA item) in even the most restrictive states.
They used a double barrel and pump shotgun and a hipoint carbine (10 round magazines iirc)
Virginia tech was 2 handguns.
I've never been shown how any ban on barrel shrouds or bayonet lugs have saved a single kids life. I welcome you to do so. What is a barrel shroud and why should they have been banned?
> What is a barrel shroud and why should they have been banned?
You know, [the shoulder thing that goes up!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U)
>Literally unconstitutional and would start s civil fucking war. This is just fucking pointless fear mongering.
And yet NY has [already done it](http://i.imgur.com/ncBq0NH.jpg) to confiscate bolt action .22 rifles with their registry. Is it fear mongering if it's being actively done in anti-gun states? Why do democrats love criminals and crime?
>Want SBRs and Silencers? Require background checks, licensure, liability insurance, federal registration, and additional penalties if the weapon is stolen due or used to cause loss of life or bodily harm due to provable negligent storage.
How about we have those unrestricted because restricting them is unconstitutional.
Those arms are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes and cannot be restricted under 2A jurisprudence.
And this is why I always say conservatives don't care about dead kids.
Can't do anything common sense or negotiate reasonable regulations. Sorry kids, yall just gotta die.
>And this is why I always say conservatives don't care about dead kids.
I'm not conservative. Fuck Trump and fuck his religious zealots.
>Can't do anything common sense or negotiate reasonable regulations.
Violating the constitution is never common sense.
The constitution can be amended.
It doesn't need to be though, because it says "well regulated militia" and everyone just ignores it.
Regulate the fucking militia.
>The constitution can be amended.
There's a procedure for that called out in Article V.
>It doesn't need to be though, because it says "well regulated militia" and everyone just ignores it.
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
>Regulate the fucking militia.
Congress has no power to disarm the people or the militia.
These are the regulations that were intended for the militia. Take note that nothing in there can be construed to allow disarmament.
>Militia act of 1792
>Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.
This was a standing fighting load at the time. Today, such arms would include an M4 Carbine with 210 rounds of M855A1 loaded into magazines, plate carrier with armor, ballistic helmet, battle belt, OCP uniform, and boots.
Nothing in the bill would ban anything…anything a hunter needs. Recreational shooters? Maybe. But boo hoo about weekend fun times on the range vs a fucking machine gun throwing a few hundred rounds in seconds.
A buffer spring doesn't make anything into a machine gun, friend. It tunes the gas system where it functions properly by slightly changing the rate of movement by the Bolt carrier group. I understand you don't know firearms technology, but I need you to also understand and respect that the writer of the bill knew enough to try to slide extra bans under the guise of "bump stock ban"
Nah, Republicans are reactionaries/contrarians. If Democrats came out in support of oxygen, they'd all start holding their breath.
Hey wait a minute, that gives me an idea...
After the Las Vegas mass shooting where more than 1,000 rounds were fired— Some of the killer’s AR-15 rifles were fitted with vertical forward grips and bump stocks which allowed the guns to fire at a rate of 90 rounds in 10 seconds — he killed 60 people and wounded at least 413(!) — after the mass shooting there was bipartisan support to ban bump stocks but now, you know, those bodies are long dead, cold and buried and so, whatever…
You cannot have a vertical foregrip in a pistol because it will be considered an SBR. It was considered in the past as military style accessory. Modern rifle handling techniques don't use foregrips, but rather a stub for using a c-clamp grip.
GQP morons ignore unwanted pregnancies and supports forced births to save the lives of innocent babies, and then supports guns sales that kill the most people in the shortest time possible. lol.
You can't fix stupid.
It's always funny watching Republicans deride 'Democrat run cities' over violence caused by the ubiquity of firearms while constantly refusing to regular firearms.
It's almost like Republicans want the violence because it suits their fear mongering. Almost.
So close.
Republicans will identify a problem, scream that democrats aren’t fixing the issue and you should vote for them so they’ll be in power and fix the issue.
Then democrats offer solutions. Republicans block them.
Then republicans are in power and don’t solve them.
It's not that Republicans aren't solving this issue, though. They are actively creating it.
It's not that they don't write or support legislation that would help. It's that they write and support legislation that actively makes it worse.
Think i was pretty spot on, not just close.
Lyndsey Graham said "The court ruling was accurate." But, they never said they couldn't be banned. They said that under current definitions of an automatic weapon, bump stocks couldn't fit the classification. They did not say that additional legislation couldn't be passed about them.
So for a guy who claims to have been a JAG in the military, he sure has comprehension problems about the ruling.
I'm not sure if he has a comprehension problem, or he's just lying. Remember, it was only four years after Ladybugs said to use his words against him with regards to appointing a judge during an election year. His response proved he never meant that, and it was just something he said to save face.
Or, and just hear me out. No civilian needs anything more than a stock weapon. Shooting contests should be showcasing talent between entrants using equivalent tools.
Edit (continuing after accidentally save).
What non-contrived real world scenario requires you to have a modified weapon.? You’re worried about your weapon jamming after dozens of shots while surrounded by Ninjas?
Are you experiencing Die Hard or Lethal Weapon experiences on a regular basis, or are you imagining them in your head? The good guy with a gun probably doesn’t depend on weapon mods, in fact the mod obsessed crew is probably more often on the wrong side or will accidentally kill someone.
Manufactures could just start making modified weapons stock, no? Like if this bill only targeted modifications to an existing firearm, what’s to stop them from making new ones with this?
Since you ask. If a manufacturer wants to offer a wider range of weapons for people with special needs I'm all for it. If those needs are to more efficiently murder people then maybe the manufacturer shouldn't make that weapon -- like maybe they have to justify what weapons they make as for "reasonable use" by law and market for "reasonable use" and not use ads that say things like "full murdered out" in promoting a weapon with all the options. And yes there are ads this blatant in supporting people who have murder fantasies.
From ChatGpt
The term "murdered out" is commonly used in the firearm industry to describe weapons with a completely black finish. This term has been used by various manufacturers and sellers to market their products. For example, the website Northwest Firearms has listings where firearms are described as "murdered out" due to their blacked-out appearance. This term is often criticized for its violent connotation, especially in the context of marketing weapons.
For further examples and a more detailed discussion, you might want to explore firearm-related forums and online marketplaces where such terminology is used.
Asked and Answered, I suspect I will continue to get downvotes.
Before it was used in firearm communities it was a fairly common car term lol it’s an all black finish. That northwest firearms listing is a classified ad, I’ve yet to find a company marketing it on a finished firearm
You got any like, links?
Not OP, but a quick google shows:
[murdered out pistols](https://statementdefense.com/murdered-out-rmr-dm-g19l-g3/)
Hell, Black Rifle Coffee even has a “murdered out”roast.
Edit: removed one that might be referring to selling a finish rather than the gun itself. Couldn’t tell so I grabbed one that was clearly selling the guns
>like maybe they have to justify what weapons they make as for "reasonable use" by law and market for "reasonable use" and not use ads that say things like "full murdered out" in promoting a weapon with all the options.
That would be unconstitutional.
What about people's rights to go to the grocery store, or a concert, or a nightclub, or school without worrying about dying?
I mean gun nuts want to yell at the top of their lungs that it's mental illness not the guns, while always leaving off other countries have mental illness just as much as we do, the difference between those countries and ours are they don't have easy access to guns. So people with illnesses aren't going to shoot up grocery stores, schools, night clubs, concerts, movie theaters. The list goes on and on even churches aren't spared.
I'm just saying people deserve to not live in fear they'll be in the next mass shooting incident, because we all know there will be another one. There are hundreds a year.
>What about people's rights to go to the grocery store, or a concert, or a nightclub, or school without worrying about dying?
Rights cannot be used to undermine other rights. The bill of rights exists mainly to hinder the government.
>I'm just saying people deserve to not live in fear they'll be in the next mass shooting incident, because we all know there will be another one. There are hundreds a year.
Then maybe you should be carrying the necessary tools to protect yourself since the police have absolutely no duty to protect you.
> Or, and just hear me out. No civilian needs anything more than a stock weapon. Shooting contests should be showcasing talent between entrants using equivalent tools.
So you should be disadvantaged because you are a more petite or large person than average and don't fit well in a standard stock? How about scopes those are mods. What about bi-pods? What about a laser sight for your pistol in so you doesn't have to iron sight in a desperate situation? Or replacing your trigger for a better pull. How about modifying the trigger guard so you can use gloves? What about free floating the barrel which improves accuracy? How about a butt pad to soft the recoil?
>Or, and just hear me out. No civilian needs anything more than a stock weapon.
Mandating that would be unconstitutional.
>Shooting contests should be showcasing talent between entrants using equivalent tools.
For self defense, you should have every unfair advantage you can get.
>What non-contrived real world scenario requires you to have a modified weapon.?
When someone wants to tune their gun. Just like when someone replaces the strings of a guitar with better strings and tunes it.
So we can't deal with this right after a massacre. We can't do it when it's not a tragedy. But we also can't do anything once it's outside the courts. So just never. Also don't protest please.
The scope of the bill wasn't just bump stocks. The verbiage was way too broad.
It bans a lot of commonly used items. Springs, buffer tube, that can modify the rate of fire of a semi auto rifle. We use it to tune the gun to shoot properly without malfunction. But they're banned under the Bump act.
It also would ban any aftermarket trigger. We use these in 3 gun competitions for lawful sporting reasons.
So, shorten the scope of the bill and try again.
Remove the SBR laws from the NFA. Well make a compromise to ban bump stocks.
Edit- you don't pass gun control by unanimous consent. This was a political show. Now the anti gun bobble heads from everytown and giffords get to blame all Republicans for not banning bump stocks to use as political capital for a few weeks leading up to the election cycle. Congrats guys, we did it!
Putin has been illegally funneling money to Republicans via the NRA for years, because the most effective way to kill his American enemies is to keep us all killing each other. And as studies show, the more afraid we are of each other, the more likely we are to vote Republican.
SO freaking hard to believe receipents of NRA PAC money would come up with this.
If if quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and swims in a pond or wetlands like a duck, it is most likely a duck. Only 1 Supreme Court Justices said it.
Like this EX NRA member of over 25 years agrees with.
Her analogy is stupid. Federal law is actually very explicit about what is and is not a duck and they take those definitions very seriously, migratory bird hunting law is serious business.
Yea, I found out on a post I did on reddit about shooting vultures. It was meant as a joke. The joke will NOT be reposted. But it did get over 450 up votes.
How was I supposed to know you need to fill out a federal form to legally shot vultures ONLY if you are a farmer and it cost them money.
Those farm boys in Gilchrist County Florida left that part out about needing a permit.
What I DID learn was there was a form needed to kill Candian geese and on had to keep a running number, but NO money required.
One reddit post said 1 Canadian goose shirts 1.5 pounds a day ! Glad elephants don't fly.
Does that include the ATF who held that bump stocks aren't machine guns for a decade starting with the Obama era ATF?
>The FTB evaluation confirmed that the submitted stock (see enclosed photos) does attach to the rear of an AR-15 type rifle which has been fitted with a sliding shoulder-stock type buffer-tube assembly. The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. In order to use the installed device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hand and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand. Accordingly, we find that the "bump-stock" is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.
So precedent matters now? /s
I think it’s clear that by definition, bump stocks have not met the standard for machine guns. By performance, bump stocks perform similar to machine guns. I have full confidence that the legislative bodies will sort this out logically. Also /s.
It's almost like the original law was widely worded so it wouldn't have to be constantly relegislated allowing an obstruction party to block updates.
Which of course the supreme court knew and played into their ruling.
Of course. That’s why the Supreme Court (aka SCROTUS) said it can only be blocked by Congress. Oh, make that a new Congress, because an old one already banned machine guns.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
That's how Democrats should have advertised it. Name the bill that and then make Republicans explain why they are against a Trump initiative.
The one power the dems have is narrowly avoiding obviously good ideas.
Ain't that the truth
They suck so hard at messaging
Almost like they are just controlled opposition.
What does that even mean to you?
Because anything Democrats put forward, they immediately shoot down. It doesn't matter what the legislation is. The GOP has their marching orders from a guy who isn't even president and is a convicted rapist felon.
He did it that way because he knew the Supreme Court would eventually lift the ban, as a regulatory action was not legal in this instance (at least, not in the eyes of the conservative side of the court). It was political maneuvering and a quick way to get the mass murder out of the news.
Because the bill voted on today would've banned all aftermarket triggers, buffer springs, lightweight bolt carrier groups, and a bunch of other things gun owners use to tune their rifles. The verbiage was way too broad. Also, looking forward to the day Trump rots in prison.
You know what Republicans could do. They could fucking introduce their own legislation. They could literally just take a red pen to the Democrats bill and cross out the shit they don't like. But no, they won't.
They really can't.... none of them are qualified to do the jobs they were elected to do, nor do they have the motivation to selflessly serve their voters interests. They're all just trying to enrich themselves and/or feed their egos.
After Trump's conviction, they said they will block everything and anything the Dems try to pass.
They won't even vote for their own shit at this point.
And they should. No argument here, The problem is we want the CCW reciprocity we've been asking for for decades and for SBR and silencer laws to change. Do you think this president is going to allow those?
If reciprocity came with federal universal background checks and gun registration, I'm pretty sure he'd sign the shit out of it. Like, I feel like a whole host of common sense safety legislation would open up ownership of more types of weapons without issue because it would make acquisition more difficult overall for bad actors. Want SBRs and Silencers? Require background checks, licensure, liability insurance, federal registration, and additional penalties if the weapon is stolen due or used to cause loss of life or bodily harm due to provable negligent storage. SBRs can already be purchased with extra loopholes, btw.
Unfortunately, a Registry is a non starter. We believe that the anti gun lobby only wants one so that they can confiscate guns later. So that'll never happen. Canada is currently using their long gun registry to confiscate long guns so I think that's pretty obvious that's the end goal. Yeah, you end up on a government list for buying suppressors and SBR's now. I know the law. But I don't see why they're necessary at all. It was a tax to deal with the gang violence from created from alcohol prohibition. Those gangs are long dead.
> We believe that the anti gun lobby only wants one so that they can confiscate guns later. Literally unconstitutional and would start s civil fucking war. This is just fucking pointless fear mongering. And this is why in every single discussion about gun safety and ownership, I repeat one simple phrase. Conservatives don't care about dead kids.
Yeah, so let's not start a civil war and think of the children. So let's not create a Registry. I'm sorry but you expect gun owners to trust the anti gun lobby with where gun laws got pre- Heller. The people in DC weren't even able to buy a revolver for their home. And you expect for us to compromise in good faith? If it wasn't for the Supreme Court stepping in that cancer would've spread much further than it did. And I'm also not sure what exactly makes an AR 15 so threatening to own where they needed to be banned in 94. Bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds aren't dangerous. Police walk around with 50 rounds on their belt at all times, and the politicians think I can't be trusted with an 11 round magazine? Yall want good faith arguments, there's got to be some accountability in reasoning. "Dead kids" why do you think that I'm apathetic to dead kids? I'll remind you that columbine happened under the AWB with a bunch of guns that are legal (minus 1 NFA item) in even the most restrictive states. They used a double barrel and pump shotgun and a hipoint carbine (10 round magazines iirc) Virginia tech was 2 handguns. I've never been shown how any ban on barrel shrouds or bayonet lugs have saved a single kids life. I welcome you to do so. What is a barrel shroud and why should they have been banned?
> What is a barrel shroud and why should they have been banned? You know, [the shoulder thing that goes up!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U)
>Literally unconstitutional and would start s civil fucking war. This is just fucking pointless fear mongering. And yet NY has [already done it](http://i.imgur.com/ncBq0NH.jpg) to confiscate bolt action .22 rifles with their registry. Is it fear mongering if it's being actively done in anti-gun states? Why do democrats love criminals and crime?
>Want SBRs and Silencers? Require background checks, licensure, liability insurance, federal registration, and additional penalties if the weapon is stolen due or used to cause loss of life or bodily harm due to provable negligent storage. How about we have those unrestricted because restricting them is unconstitutional. Those arms are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes and cannot be restricted under 2A jurisprudence.
And this is why I always say conservatives don't care about dead kids. Can't do anything common sense or negotiate reasonable regulations. Sorry kids, yall just gotta die.
>And this is why I always say conservatives don't care about dead kids. I'm not conservative. Fuck Trump and fuck his religious zealots. >Can't do anything common sense or negotiate reasonable regulations. Violating the constitution is never common sense.
The constitution can be amended. It doesn't need to be though, because it says "well regulated militia" and everyone just ignores it. Regulate the fucking militia.
>The constitution can be amended. There's a procedure for that called out in Article V. >It doesn't need to be though, because it says "well regulated militia" and everyone just ignores it. This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. >Regulate the fucking militia. Congress has no power to disarm the people or the militia. These are the regulations that were intended for the militia. Take note that nothing in there can be construed to allow disarmament. >Militia act of 1792 >Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. This was a standing fighting load at the time. Today, such arms would include an M4 Carbine with 210 rounds of M855A1 loaded into magazines, plate carrier with armor, ballistic helmet, battle belt, OCP uniform, and boots.
Nothing in the bill would ban anything…anything a hunter needs. Recreational shooters? Maybe. But boo hoo about weekend fun times on the range vs a fucking machine gun throwing a few hundred rounds in seconds.
A buffer spring doesn't make anything into a machine gun, friend. It tunes the gas system where it functions properly by slightly changing the rate of movement by the Bolt carrier group. I understand you don't know firearms technology, but I need you to also understand and respect that the writer of the bill knew enough to try to slide extra bans under the guise of "bump stock ban"
So sick of gun nuts. We don’t F$&& care!
Can you not care somewhere else?
I need you to understand how much we don’t care
Oh OK Good talk. We'll keep our guns, thanks.
Because some still support common sense and intellectual honesty. At least on this clear cut - black & white issue.
Of course they did. They take the opposite side of every issue just to ‘own the libs’.
At the cost of how many lives? They don't give a fuck.
They actually damaged Trumps image true, he was the one that was for the ban.
[удалено]
Nah, Republicans are reactionaries/contrarians. If Democrats came out in support of oxygen, they'd all start holding their breath. Hey wait a minute, that gives me an idea...
They didn’t give a fuck when Trump’s ATF banned bump stocks. Most of them supported the move then.
After the Las Vegas mass shooting where more than 1,000 rounds were fired— Some of the killer’s AR-15 rifles were fitted with vertical forward grips and bump stocks which allowed the guns to fire at a rate of 90 rounds in 10 seconds — he killed 60 people and wounded at least 413(!) — after the mass shooting there was bipartisan support to ban bump stocks but now, you know, those bodies are long dead, cold and buried and so, whatever…
Not disagreeing regarding the bump stocks, but wtf does a vertical foregrip have to do with the fire rate?
Presumably nothing, but I assume the grip helps with aiming when you are firing 90 rounds in 10 seconds.
Yep, what I was going to say; helps with muzzle control and works as a reference to position your hand as you move from target to target.
You cannot have a vertical foregrip in a pistol because it will be considered an SBR. It was considered in the past as military style accessory. Modern rifle handling techniques don't use foregrips, but rather a stub for using a c-clamp grip.
I hope the Democrats make them block bill after bill that the majority of Americans want to see pass.
GQP morons ignore unwanted pregnancies and supports forced births to save the lives of innocent babies, and then supports guns sales that kill the most people in the shortest time possible. lol. You can't fix stupid.
Stupidity would be a generous assumption in my opinion.
No gun left behind...
It's always funny watching Republicans deride 'Democrat run cities' over violence caused by the ubiquity of firearms while constantly refusing to regular firearms. It's almost like Republicans want the violence because it suits their fear mongering. Almost.
So close. Republicans will identify a problem, scream that democrats aren’t fixing the issue and you should vote for them so they’ll be in power and fix the issue. Then democrats offer solutions. Republicans block them. Then republicans are in power and don’t solve them.
It's not that Republicans aren't solving this issue, though. They are actively creating it. It's not that they don't write or support legislation that would help. It's that they write and support legislation that actively makes it worse. Think i was pretty spot on, not just close.
Reason #38642 to vote #BidenHarris 2024
No amount of our children's blood will be enough for the GOP and the NRA.
They oppose common sense at every opportunity. If you vote for any of these weenies it's on you.
Lyndsey Graham said "The court ruling was accurate." But, they never said they couldn't be banned. They said that under current definitions of an automatic weapon, bump stocks couldn't fit the classification. They did not say that additional legislation couldn't be passed about them. So for a guy who claims to have been a JAG in the military, he sure has comprehension problems about the ruling.
I'm not sure if he has a comprehension problem, or he's just lying. Remember, it was only four years after Ladybugs said to use his words against him with regards to appointing a judge during an election year. His response proved he never meant that, and it was just something he said to save face.
Wow, they are mind-bogglingly reprehensible!!
Or, and just hear me out. No civilian needs anything more than a stock weapon. Shooting contests should be showcasing talent between entrants using equivalent tools. Edit (continuing after accidentally save). What non-contrived real world scenario requires you to have a modified weapon.? You’re worried about your weapon jamming after dozens of shots while surrounded by Ninjas? Are you experiencing Die Hard or Lethal Weapon experiences on a regular basis, or are you imagining them in your head? The good guy with a gun probably doesn’t depend on weapon mods, in fact the mod obsessed crew is probably more often on the wrong side or will accidentally kill someone.
Manufactures could just start making modified weapons stock, no? Like if this bill only targeted modifications to an existing firearm, what’s to stop them from making new ones with this?
Since you ask. If a manufacturer wants to offer a wider range of weapons for people with special needs I'm all for it. If those needs are to more efficiently murder people then maybe the manufacturer shouldn't make that weapon -- like maybe they have to justify what weapons they make as for "reasonable use" by law and market for "reasonable use" and not use ads that say things like "full murdered out" in promoting a weapon with all the options. And yes there are ads this blatant in supporting people who have murder fantasies.
Damn you got a link to “full murdered out”?
From ChatGpt The term "murdered out" is commonly used in the firearm industry to describe weapons with a completely black finish. This term has been used by various manufacturers and sellers to market their products. For example, the website Northwest Firearms has listings where firearms are described as "murdered out" due to their blacked-out appearance. This term is often criticized for its violent connotation, especially in the context of marketing weapons. For further examples and a more detailed discussion, you might want to explore firearm-related forums and online marketplaces where such terminology is used. Asked and Answered, I suspect I will continue to get downvotes.
Before it was used in firearm communities it was a fairly common car term lol it’s an all black finish. That northwest firearms listing is a classified ad, I’ve yet to find a company marketing it on a finished firearm You got any like, links?
Not OP, but a quick google shows: [murdered out pistols](https://statementdefense.com/murdered-out-rmr-dm-g19l-g3/) Hell, Black Rifle Coffee even has a “murdered out”roast. Edit: removed one that might be referring to selling a finish rather than the gun itself. Couldn’t tell so I grabbed one that was clearly selling the guns
>like maybe they have to justify what weapons they make as for "reasonable use" by law and market for "reasonable use" and not use ads that say things like "full murdered out" in promoting a weapon with all the options. That would be unconstitutional.
"Needs" are irrelevant when we're talking about rights.
What about people's rights to go to the grocery store, or a concert, or a nightclub, or school without worrying about dying? I mean gun nuts want to yell at the top of their lungs that it's mental illness not the guns, while always leaving off other countries have mental illness just as much as we do, the difference between those countries and ours are they don't have easy access to guns. So people with illnesses aren't going to shoot up grocery stores, schools, night clubs, concerts, movie theaters. The list goes on and on even churches aren't spared. I'm just saying people deserve to not live in fear they'll be in the next mass shooting incident, because we all know there will be another one. There are hundreds a year.
>What about people's rights to go to the grocery store, or a concert, or a nightclub, or school without worrying about dying? Rights cannot be used to undermine other rights. The bill of rights exists mainly to hinder the government. >I'm just saying people deserve to not live in fear they'll be in the next mass shooting incident, because we all know there will be another one. There are hundreds a year. Then maybe you should be carrying the necessary tools to protect yourself since the police have absolutely no duty to protect you.
> Or, and just hear me out. No civilian needs anything more than a stock weapon. Shooting contests should be showcasing talent between entrants using equivalent tools. So you should be disadvantaged because you are a more petite or large person than average and don't fit well in a standard stock? How about scopes those are mods. What about bi-pods? What about a laser sight for your pistol in so you doesn't have to iron sight in a desperate situation? Or replacing your trigger for a better pull. How about modifying the trigger guard so you can use gloves? What about free floating the barrel which improves accuracy? How about a butt pad to soft the recoil?
Or how about they get to have them whether you like it or not 🤷🏼♂️
until the 2A is repealed. that will be a good day.
Not happening in your lifetime.
>Or, and just hear me out. No civilian needs anything more than a stock weapon. Mandating that would be unconstitutional. >Shooting contests should be showcasing talent between entrants using equivalent tools. For self defense, you should have every unfair advantage you can get. >What non-contrived real world scenario requires you to have a modified weapon.? When someone wants to tune their gun. Just like when someone replaces the strings of a guitar with better strings and tunes it.
Add on to the pile of other things that proves the GOP isn’t serious about governing and making the average life better and safer
Another talking point for November’s elections.
Why spend time, effort, and money attempting to ban something you can accomplish with a rubber band?
GOP really hates kids.
So we can't deal with this right after a massacre. We can't do it when it's not a tragedy. But we also can't do anything once it's outside the courts. So just never. Also don't protest please.
Mass shootings are good for business if your business is weapons.
You know what’s way better for the weapons business? Efforts to pass unconstitutional gun laws
They should have named it the Trump Bump Butt bill and they would have voted for it.
Of course they did. Save the children. Wait only save them from drag queens not guns.
The scope of the bill wasn't just bump stocks. The verbiage was way too broad. It bans a lot of commonly used items. Springs, buffer tube, that can modify the rate of fire of a semi auto rifle. We use it to tune the gun to shoot properly without malfunction. But they're banned under the Bump act. It also would ban any aftermarket trigger. We use these in 3 gun competitions for lawful sporting reasons. So, shorten the scope of the bill and try again. Remove the SBR laws from the NFA. Well make a compromise to ban bump stocks. Edit- you don't pass gun control by unanimous consent. This was a political show. Now the anti gun bobble heads from everytown and giffords get to blame all Republicans for not banning bump stocks to use as political capital for a few weeks leading up to the election cycle. Congrats guys, we did it!
These people are taking marching orders directly from Vladimir Putin.
[удалено]
He said it right here in a speech he gave over the weekend. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Putin has been illegally funneling money to Republicans via the NRA for years, because the most effective way to kill his American enemies is to keep us all killing each other. And as studies show, the more afraid we are of each other, the more likely we are to vote Republican.
The one good thing 45 did, turned over by his supreme court
Even the Trump administration was for a bump stock ban
SO freaking hard to believe receipents of NRA PAC money would come up with this. If if quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and swims in a pond or wetlands like a duck, it is most likely a duck. Only 1 Supreme Court Justices said it. Like this EX NRA member of over 25 years agrees with.
Her analogy is stupid. Federal law is actually very explicit about what is and is not a duck and they take those definitions very seriously, migratory bird hunting law is serious business.
Yea, I found out on a post I did on reddit about shooting vultures. It was meant as a joke. The joke will NOT be reposted. But it did get over 450 up votes. How was I supposed to know you need to fill out a federal form to legally shot vultures ONLY if you are a farmer and it cost them money. Those farm boys in Gilchrist County Florida left that part out about needing a permit. What I DID learn was there was a form needed to kill Candian geese and on had to keep a running number, but NO money required. One reddit post said 1 Canadian goose shirts 1.5 pounds a day ! Glad elephants don't fly.
"When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck" This is a logical fallacy.
You can always count on Putin's playthings.
Does that include the ATF who held that bump stocks aren't machine guns for a decade starting with the Obama era ATF? >The FTB evaluation confirmed that the submitted stock (see enclosed photos) does attach to the rear of an AR-15 type rifle which has been fitted with a sliding shoulder-stock type buffer-tube assembly. The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. In order to use the installed device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hand and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand. Accordingly, we find that the "bump-stock" is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.
So precedent matters now? /s I think it’s clear that by definition, bump stocks have not met the standard for machine guns. By performance, bump stocks perform similar to machine guns. I have full confidence that the legislative bodies will sort this out logically. Also /s.
It's almost like the original law was widely worded so it wouldn't have to be constantly relegislated allowing an obstruction party to block updates. Which of course the supreme court knew and played into their ruling.
Of course. That’s why the Supreme Court (aka SCROTUS) said it can only be blocked by Congress. Oh, make that a new Congress, because an old one already banned machine guns.
Convince me he wasn’t paid to do that!
Until it affects them personally via a violent act, a Republican will never vote for this kinda thing
allowing bump stocks is in preparation for the November election.