US Supreme Court lifts ban on gun bump stocks
US Supreme Court lifts ban on gun bump stocks
www.bbc.com
US Supreme Court throws out ban on bump stocks for guns
34 comments
-
-
As I said in the other thread... This wasn't a merits decision as to "bumpstocks good" or "bumpstocks bad". The point was that machine guns have a statutory definition. Bumpstocks did not fit that definition. Trump tried to use executive order to essentially amend the law all by himself to revise the practical implementation of that definition. That's not how the US works. If the president wants bumpstocks banned, he must use political capital to lobby congress to pass a bill, then sign the bill if it makes it that far.
To everyone whining about the outcome of this particular case, imagine unilateral executive authority applied to every area of American life, and realize what you are wishing for.
-
Unfortunately, I think too many people actually want that.
-
People have gotten in the habit of cheering on court rulings based on outcome, rather than any defining principles. I've been trying to encourage people to imagine the shoe is on the other foot and their political enemies are in charge, before contemplating expansion of federal powers.
-
Only when they agree with the actions.
-
-
In my opinion, a bumpstock does actually fit the definition of a machine gun, because the user-action to fire multiple shots in a row is one continuous action. Your finger becomes a part of the mechanical function of the gun and the trigger is pressed by pushing the handguard forward.
-
-
-
It's incredibly fucking stupid to use these things for anything other than indiscriminate area effect, which equates only to spraying into a crowd in any realistic civilian context.
This is what really pains me is the bump stock is a device whose only real purpose is to hurt a large group of people with no regard to who is in that area. No one is going to be out on the white house lawn mowing down zombie hordes with this thing. Its primary intent is to hurt civilians.
-
-
Since a bump stock alone is just a useless object, couldn’t they have just been banned them without ever even needing to reference weapons?
-
These we're banned under Trump. This is ridiculous.
-
Sorry, can't hear you. Because of the hearing damage from using a full auto rifle without a fucking silencer!
-
-
I'll preface this by saying I'm not American so the point of this isn't a statement on seconds amendment. What I do not understand is, why would citizens be so obsessed by this format of firearms that it would make it all the way to the supreme court.
-
-
The 1% profits are affected
-
-
im glad the country is using time and resources for such an important issue as this
-
@ me when the next mass shooting with bump stocks happens. I give it a year max
-
I give it a few days. It might have already happened, I haven't been checking the news today.
-
-
Shall not be infringed on my accessories. I remember that part too.
-
Finally! I can defend my home, again.
-
Really the issue is who is allowed to use them anyway
-
Now if they would just ban financial bump stocks, a.k.a. penny stocks, which contributed as much to the las vegas shooting as gun bump stocks did.
-
I don't know much about finance, but how would you ban cheap-ass stocks?
-
-
You think they'll remember to update the content?
34 comments
These idiots have blood on their hands.
They didn't care when someone shot them at a congressional softball game.
I removed a fingers crossed emoji because this this was extremely poor taste and I realize how stupid I am
You realize many guns can be made full auto just by filling down or replacing a single part and the spring, right? It's been an issue for DECADES. This law was just reactionary legislation and didn't actually impact mass shootings. It being gone doesn't really change anything other than one less law to enforce.
Does America have a gun problem? Yes. Does it have an ass backwards bureaucracy problem? Also yes.
No they don’t (well… they do, but not for this). Bump stocks are a stupid gimmick that were only ever banned in the first place to appease low-information hysterical types.
No they don't. Lawmakers do, for failing to pass a law banning bump stocks. What exactly do you think is the role of a judge?