• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS Overturns Bump Stock Ban

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Bumb stocks don't change fire rate.

It's not turned into a fully automatic weapon.

Please learn the facts and stop with the misinformation.
But...but...but....they're scary.
It shouldn't be a matter of law.
SCOTUS should rule based on popular opinion.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
After the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017 in which 413 were wounded and 60 killed, the Trump administration implemented a ban on bump stocks. The shooter had a bump stock modification to his weapon which effectively changed it from a semi-automatic weapon to a fully automatic weapon.

The decision was 6-3 of course. Thomas wrote the majority opinion. A link to the decision is embedded in the story.

This will turn into a campaign issue for sure. My bet is that Trump sides with SCOTUS on this even though he banned it in 2018.

The Court appears to see the pitfall of defining a new law for all, based on the actions of a few bad guys. Say 99.99% do not require this law, due to being good citizens, why impose the law on all these people, for whom it does not apply? I do not own guns, but that law assumed I was a criminal need this warning. What did I do to deserve that?

It would be better to deal harshly with just the 0.01% crooks who screw up. Leave the good citizens alone. We can tie the bad guy to a target, and use his modified gun and empty the clip on the target. Let that be a warning to the crooks. The problem is the Left coddles criminals, and would prefer make the honest 99.99%, victims of a law, that does not apply to them, so the crook does not stand out as the bad guy. Serial killers become folk heroes, while their victims are forgotten. Does this create these monsters?

Lawyers donate the majority of their campaign donations to Democrats, who in turn make more and more laws for lawyer jobs. Republican prefer fewer laws but with teeth. Savaging otherwise good citizens, with laws that may not apply to them, adds more lawyer jobs, plus it helps to shelter the career criminals, who can become more anonymous in the 100% criminal world where one size law fits all.

In places where guns are illegal and good citizens follow the law, there are more victims, compared to where guns are legal and criminals think twice since potential victims are packing heat. That law benefitted the crooks, by defining everyone as a potential crook and thereby diluting the limited police that address the real crooks. An honest collector is target taking away police from the bad guys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pogo

Well-Known Member
The Court appears to see the pitfall of defining a new law for all, based on the actions of a few bad guys. Say 99.99% do not require this law, due to being good citizens, why impose the law on all these people, for whom it does not apply? I do not own guns, but that law assumed I was a criminal need this warning. What did I do to deserve that?

It would be better to deal harshly with just the 0.01% crooks who screw up. Leave the good citizens alone. We can tie the bad guy to a target, and use his modified gun and empty the clip on the target. Let that be a warning to the crooks. The problem is the Left coddles criminals, and would prefer make the honest 99.99%, victims of a law, that does not apply to them, so the crook does not stand out as the bad guy. Serial killers become folk heroes, while their victims are forgotten. Does this create these monsters?

Lawyers donate the majority of their campaign donations to Democrats, who in turn make more and more laws for lawyer jobs. Republican prefer fewer laws but with teeth. Savaging otherwise good citizens, with laws that may not apply to them, adds more lawyer jobs, plus it helps to shelter the career criminals, who can become more anonymous in the 100% criminal world where one size law fits all.

In places where guns are illegal and good citizens follow the law, there are more victims, compared to where guns are legal and criminals think twice since potential victims are packing heat. That law benefitted the crooks, by defining everyone as a potential crook and thereby diluting the limited police that address the real crooks. An honest collector is target taking away police from the bad guys.
Trump and the government passed a law with the intention of banning bump stocks as is their function, Scotus agreed with an exception to the intent of the law due to a technicality in the way the law was written, It will be fixed, the rest of your post is actually irrelevant to the subject.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In places where guns are illegal and good citizens follow the law, there are more victims, compared to where guns are legal and criminals think twice since potential victims are packing heat. That law benefitted the crooks, by defining everyone as a potential crook and thereby diluting the limited police that address the real crooks. An honest collector is target taking away police from the bad guys.
We have more guns per capita than any other country and by far the highest mass shootings anywhere in the world, so maybe at least do the math.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
We have more guns per capita than any other country and by far the highest mass shootings anywhere in the world, so maybe at least do the math.
If you disagree with their claim that places where firearms are legal have less crime, you above quoted post does not show they are wrong.
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
If you disagree with their claim that places where firearms are legal have less crime, you above quoted post does not show they are wrong.

Less crime doesn't mean there aren't more firearm deaths per capita. Is the trade off of less crime but more gun deaths worth it ? Idk?
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Less crime doesn't mean there aren't more firearm deaths per capita. Is the trade off of less crime but more gun deaths worth it ? Idk?
And?

I mean, the "more gun per capita and more mass shootings" was in reply to "where guns are legal there is less crime".

I am merely pointing out that "more guns per capita/more mass shootings" in no way refutes the "legal gun areas/less crime" claim.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist

The Evidence

In a scholarly review of the relationship between gun prevalence and homicide almost 20 years ago, Harvard researchers concluded that available evidence supports the hypothesis that greater numbers of guns corresponds to higher rates of homicide.[1] In the years since, the evidence has strengthened at every level of analysis. Further, the hypothesis that more guns equates to more deaths has been supported using many different ways of measuring gun availability and access...
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I think that if you check you will see that gun deaths per capita are lower in states with stricter gun controls.
no-title.png

Why does Alabama have more gun deaths than New York?

Experts say lax gun laws, few social programs and poverty fuel the state’s gun violence


It is not just gun laws, it is as much poverty and lack of social programs, that damn liberal stuff and then, most firearm deaths are not even homicide.
another social disaster.
Suicide with a gun accounts for 54% of gun deaths, by the age of 60 it accounts for 75% of gun deaths and gets even worse with age. 96% of gun deaths of people over 80 are suicide. Don't give Grandma a gun to protect herself, she is about 25 times more likely to use it on herself than to be killed by an attacker with a gun.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
After the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017 in which 413 were wounded and 60 killed, the Trump administration implemented a ban on bump stocks. The shooter had a bump stock modification to his weapon which effectively changed it from a semi-automatic weapon to a fully automatic weapon.

The decision was 6-3 of course. Thomas wrote the majority opinion. A link to the decision is embedded in the story.

This will turn into a campaign issue for sure. My bet is that Trump sides with SCOTUS on this even though he banned it in 2018.

The 15 states along with the District of Columbia maintain their bans, which will likely remain in force.

Looks like not all dem states have them banned.

IMG_20240618_182602.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

We Never Know

No Slack
After the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017 in which 413 were wounded and 60 killed, the Trump administration implemented a ban on bump stocks. The shooter had a bump stock modification to his weapon which effectively changed it from a semi-automatic weapon to a fully automatic weapon.

The decision was 6-3 of course. Thomas wrote the majority opinion. A link to the decision is embedded in the story.

This will turn into a campaign issue for sure. My bet is that Trump sides with SCOTUS on this even though he banned it in 2018.

One thing I was thinking about. I see people saying this is because of Trumps stacked SCOTUS.
Have youns gave any thought to the fact that Trump is the one that banned bump stocks so in reality SCOTUS went against him and his ban.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
One thing I was thinking about. I see people saying this is because of Trumps stacked SCOTUS.
Have youns gave any thought to the fact that Trump is the one that banned bump stocks so in reality SCOTUS went against him and his ban.
Ironic, but not a contradiction.
 
Top