“Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress’s definition of ‘machinegun’ and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose.”
“We conclude that [a] semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machinegun’ because it does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger"
“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,”
Ignoring reality in favor of weird essentialism to support your base, is like peak conservative. How dumb.
She’s basically saying it’s irrelevant that one trigger pull equals one bullet fired. That has nothing to do with “being a machine gun”. That is just how semi auto guns work.
How would you outlaw this? You’d have to outlaw belt loops too because functionally they do the same thing.
Her argument is invalid. A goose walks like a duck and flaps like a duck and looks like a duck but it’s not a fucking duck.
The idea that accessories like a pistol grip and stock choice and flash suppressor “make a gun into a machine gun” despite one bullet per trigger pull is simply not true and disingenuous.
Sotomayor should be ashamed. She’s saying a dog is a duck if you glue on wings and webbed feet.
The bump stock itself facilitates moving your finger so the trigger can reset. Pedantic, sure, but that’s literally why the bump stock was designed that way. High rate of fire while not technically being an assault weapon.
That has nothing to do with “being a machine gun”. That is just how semi auto guns work.
This sort of "X is X no matter what changes, it is always X" essentialist thinking is why conservites are increasingly getting frustrated and loosing touch with the more complex reality the rest of the world occupies. This is the same line of thinking that keeps y’all upset about trans rights and understanding systemic racist.
You’re arguing with an anti-gun audience that knows nothing about any of this. All they know is, “Guns bad!” (Wait till they find out about the shoestring conversion kit.)
Tell you what guys: Grab an AR-15 with a bump stock and I’ll square off with mine, which is, well, stock. Good luck.
It was a poorly written ruling with poor reasoning. If y’all want to bitch, bitch at Congress to create a solid definition of “machine gun” that’s a little newer than the 1930s. I’d be right behind it.
Or, we could forget the whole notion of “law” and “precedent”, just go with “feels”. (Which seems to be lemmy’s take on anything more complex than jaywalking.)
You’re arguing with an anti-gun audience that knows nothing about any of this. All they know is, “Guns bad!” (Wait till they find out about the shoestring conversion kit.)
Former infantry here.
Guns should only be used by trained professionals who know not to pull the trigger.
The AR-15 is a tool for people who can’t aim well.
The only purpose for a bump-stock is to turn murder into mass-murder. It has no other purpose.
Ignoring reality in favor of weird essentialism to support your base, is like peak conservative. How dumb.
Originalism is the legal equivalent of people picking and choosing single sentences out of religious texts out of context.
The term makes sense if you understand it is referring to the how the interpretation of the Constitution is brand new (“original”) for each judgement.
Ignoring reality because Thomas likes to live like a billionaire and Alito hates gays.
She’s basically saying it’s irrelevant that one trigger pull equals one bullet fired. That has nothing to do with “being a machine gun”. That is just how semi auto guns work.
How would you outlaw this? You’d have to outlaw belt loops too because functionally they do the same thing.
Her argument is invalid. A goose walks like a duck and flaps like a duck and looks like a duck but it’s not a fucking duck.
The idea that accessories like a pistol grip and stock choice and flash suppressor “make a gun into a machine gun” despite one bullet per trigger pull is simply not true and disingenuous.
Sotomayor should be ashamed. She’s saying a dog is a duck if you glue on wings and webbed feet.
Its not one per trigger pull, since the action of the machine results in another round firing unless you move your finger off the trigger.
Removed by mod
The bump stock itself facilitates moving your finger so the trigger can reset. Pedantic, sure, but that’s literally why the bump stock was designed that way. High rate of fire while not technically being an assault weapon.
Geese do not look like ducks
deleted by creator
If you cannot tell a goose apart from a duck you need to see an optometrist.
Found the pedantic gun nut.
Removed by mod
This sort of "X is X no matter what changes, it is always X" essentialist thinking is why conservites are increasingly getting frustrated and loosing touch with the more complex reality the rest of the world occupies. This is the same line of thinking that keeps y’all upset about trans rights and understanding systemic racist.
You’re arguing with an anti-gun audience that knows nothing about any of this. All they know is, “Guns bad!” (Wait till they find out about the shoestring conversion kit.)
Tell you what guys: Grab an AR-15 with a bump stock and I’ll square off with mine, which is, well, stock. Good luck.
It was a poorly written ruling with poor reasoning. If y’all want to bitch, bitch at Congress to create a solid definition of “machine gun” that’s a little newer than the 1930s. I’d be right behind it.
Or, we could forget the whole notion of “law” and “precedent”, just go with “feels”. (Which seems to be lemmy’s take on anything more complex than jaywalking.)
Former infantry here.
Guns should only be used by trained professionals who know not to pull the trigger.
The AR-15 is a tool for people who can’t aim well.
The only purpose for a bump-stock is to turn murder into mass-murder. It has no other purpose.
‘Till’ is a cash-drawer or a ploughing action.
Begin attacking my cred as per the trend.
Removed by mod