“Fossil fuel exec says Supreme Court should limit government power on climate policy”
I’m a big shooter and liberal gun nut. Not seeing the reason for bump stocks. Now that’s a dangerous argument when talking about a right! I see a lot of libs saying we have to have “reasons” for our various sorts of guns.
But I don’t get bump stocks. Don’t feel like I’m missing anything from the ban. Thoughts?
Bump stocks just provide the feeling of shooting an automatic, which shouldn’t be restricted imo.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
What kind of weapon do you hunt with?
Ruger model 11100 semi-auto .22 long rifle for Coons. (My vote for a buy it for life rifle)
For whitetail: Sako Synthetic Stock A7 .270 win centerfire rifle with fluted barrel (fucker weighs less than the barrel off any of my other rifles. Also the only gun I’ve ever sighted in at 150yds and sent two bullets back to back through the same bullet hole which anyone will tell uou is way cooler than spliting an arrow lol), Remmington 12ga (do not buy Remmington anymore, changed owners awil3 back and have sucked ever since). What I hunt whitetail the most with tho is my compound bow… but I also have a crossbow for when its crunch time lol.
AR-15 for Coyote, Beaver. Also my general everyday carry I keep mounted on the ATV ever since the increased black bear population. Also great for hunting tannerite that gets lost in a wild beaver damn lol.
Then last but not least is what I will be trying out for the first time this upcoming season. A recently refurbished WWI Arasaka Japanese sniper rifle that my neighbor who hated me growing up out of nowhere pulls me aside one day and says “here I want you to have this rifle i found fighting in the pacific during ww2. Youve always been like a son to me” ??? Dafuq? Fuck you, Dick (real guys name) you call the fucking cops on me for playing drums any time of day so i can never play, for riding dirt bikes and gocart IN OUR OWN FUCKING YARD, retrieving balls that went into your yard, and THEN you see me having a hypoglycemic episode, the one time to call the cops and instead you fucking stared at me amd went inside. Man fuck, Dick but mad respect for the crothety old ass motherfucker, he really went above the call for duty when it came to being a fucking Dick. Sorry, what was your question?
Removed, R1, no slurs.
deleted by creator
Also don’t use the r word
Crazy how it’s always a conservative using that word around here.
Crazy how it’s only the leftists who throw a fit over it
“Liberals don’t like using the names of disabilities as pejorative slurs”
How awful.
Crazy how the ogliarchs got us fighting each other
Removed by mod
Removed, R1, No Slurs. If you want, you can repost the comment with the slur removed.
deleted by creator
Hes right. If there must be a law, it should be by elected officials, not some guy like the ATF director Steven Dettelbach who by his own admission isnt even a gun expert. Thats two extremely good reasons why he shouldnt be allowed to be anywhere near gun laws.
deleted by creator
“… shall not be infringed.” Not “…shall not be infringed except…” or “…shall not be infringed but…” or “…unless…” It’s “…shall not be infringed.” The end.
It’s funny because an earlier bit of context that you have cut out from the 2nd discusses the needs of this militia to be well regulated.
You missed the comma between the militia and bear arms statements. Below are common instances when a comma should be used. None of the uses of a comma make the 2nd phrase conditional on the 1st.
- Separating items in a list of three or more
- Connecting two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction
- Setting apart non-restrictive relative clauses
Setting apart non-restrixtive relative clauses seems a simple solution to what yall don’t get.
The grouping of an amendment already implies the components are related, as each amendment is supposed to represent a single right.
If you are not a part of a well regulated militia, you have no right to bear arms.
See how I used a comma to form a single thought chaining multiple requirements?
Each amendment doesn’t represent a single right. The 1st covers freedom of religion, freedom of speech, & freedom of the press.
The “if” placed the conditional requirement not the comma.
The linguistics at the time didn’t use the coding logic of if then as often outside of scientific scenarios.
There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership. What separate right are you proposing the same sentence is declaring?
deleted by creator
Given that gun free zones make easy shooting victims, what can have government regulations will prevent people dedicated to commiting homicide?
If you take a cup of water out of a bucket, does it leave behind a cup shaped opening in the water?
deleted by creator
Sounds like we are in agreement that the amendment is able to be changed to be relevant to modern interpretations.
Nah, the militia bit was always a separate dependent clause (in the English grammar sense). It’s reasoning.
The right shall not be infringed is an independent clause. It stands on it’s own. I know almost no one remembers elementary school, but independent vs dependent clauses are taught there. Anyone remember diagramming sentences?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You mean, you have an idea in your head that you think should be enforced on everybody despite it not being democratically placed.
The word for that is fascist. And it just so happens to be the right to deadly violence lmao.
Irony is dead.
deleted by creator
And none of that applies to thoughts living in your head. You want to enforce your beliefs on everybody without any government process.
Those beliefs is in regards to your right to deadly violence.
You are a violent fascist who uses linguistics on democracy and constitutional republic to dismiss the violence you are advocating.
be careful with modern interpretations
Man, I can’t get over you flip-flopping right here.
You literally chimed in to insist upon a modern interpretation, then immediately said nobody else should do so.
Conservatives are inherently incapable of honest debate.
deleted by creator
You’re fine with the next court updating these decisions, too, right?
What a desperate attempt to leap from topic to topic to hide from the truth of what you advocated for.
Sad.
deleted by creator
What military purpose does a bump stock have ?
Don’t know, don’t care, stop crying for our rights to be restricted
deleted by creator
I’m not opposed to all restrictions.
And unlike you, I’m not a bootlicker
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
The prohibition of functional components of an arm is reasonably an infringement of the right to bear arms.
deleted by creator
