SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock
-
I doubt that the thought of breech loading rifles or single action pistols let alone rim fire or centre fire cartridges or even smokeless powder ever crossed the mind of a person in the 18th century. If it did and the thoughts were written down, the tract upon which they were written has been lost.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
To me, I think they should be banned. I cannot imagine the writers of the US constitution imagined weapons like this.
They dreamed of weapons like this.
Remember, these were people that believed it was perfectly reasonable and justifiable for two guys to go stand out on a field and try to shoot each other over a perceived insult.
You do not know what they "dreamed".
It's old-world thinking in a modern world and it needs to be "amended" Funny how they didn't write "Dueling will not be infringed"
They wrote the constitution in such a manner as to be able to adapt to a changing world by making it "amendable". And they made it difficulty to ammend. Which was the correct thing to do.
What they apparently didn't "dream" of, is how far weapons would advance, as well as how stupid, hate-filled, and ignorant humans would remain, and for how long.
@mark said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
"Dueling will not be infringed"
Might make an interesting premise on which to develop an "alternate reality" novel/movie/mini-series -- what would the USA be like today if that made it into the Constitution.
-
I really couldn't care less what a bunch of people in the 18th century thought. Half of them probably still believed in magic. Just look at what should be bloody obvious. You've banned something. A bunch of people have found a way around it. Fix the problem.
-
@George-K said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
If they had had such weapons, you can take it to the bank that they would have used them.
Yes, but.... If there were modern weapons, do you think they would have written things differently?
Why aren't all "arms" allowed? Why can't I buy a machine gun?
(I don't know the history of the laws regarding machine guns, but I am guess that at some point, the court said that machine guns were not considered "arms" by the writers of the constitution. I may have to do some looking at this to educate myself)
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Why can't I buy a machine gun?
Are you a legal resident of the U.S.? If so...
- Find a Class 3 FFL
- Pick what you want.
- Pass a BATF background check. You cannot be a prohibited person (convicted felon, illegal alien, etc.)
- Pay for the firearm, Class 3 transfer fee, sales tax and a $200 stamp (yes, it's a real stamp)
How about a MP5 in 9x19? 800 rounds/minute.
https://gunspot.com/listings/detail/15675/mp5a2-registered-receiver-machine-gun/
-
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Why can't I buy a machine gun?
Are you a legal resident of the U.S.? If so...
- Find a Class 3 FFL
- Pick what you want.
- Pass a BATF background check. You cannot be a prohibited person (convicted felon, illegal alien, etc.)
- Pay for the firearm, Class 3 transfer fee, sales tax and a $200 stamp (yes, it's a real stamp)
How about a MP5 in 9x19? 800 rounds/minute.
https://gunspot.com/listings/detail/15675/mp5a2-registered-receiver-machine-gun/
@Jolly But why is it different from buying most other guns? Do you think the same steps you list above should be needed to buy any gun?
The courts have decided that machine guns are different. So in my mind (and the courts), the #2 Amendment can be interpreted in different ways.
-
I think the NFA was the wrong ruling.
BTW, have you shot a machine gun?
-
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
I think the NFA was the wrong ruling.
BTW, have you shot a machine gun?
No, have only shot a rifle. It was required in school to learn how to shoot, open up and clean and put back together. I guess a group of late teens/early 20's girls were going to be the first defense against the Chinese invasion. LOL
So, even with the #2 amendment, the Constitution is interpreted over time. It is not a document that is fixed forever. The courts have say that a machine gun is treated differently than a pistol which is treated differently then a grenade rocket, etc etc.
-
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
I think the NFA was the wrong ruling.
BTW, have you shot a machine gun?
No, have only shot a rifle. It was required in school to learn how to shoot, open up and clean and put back together. I guess a group of late teens/early 20's girls were going to be the first defense against the Chinese invasion. LOL
So, even with the #2 amendment, the Constitution is interpreted over time. It is not a document that is fixed forever. The courts have say that a machine gun is treated differently than a pistol which is treated differently then a grenade rocket, etc etc.
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
I think the NFA was the wrong ruling.
BTW, have you shot a machine gun?
No, have only shot a rifle. It was required in school to learn how to shoot, open up and clean and put back together. I guess a group of late teens/early 20's girls were going to be the first defense against the Chinese invasion. LOL
So, even with the #2 amendment, the Constitution is interpreted over time. It is not a document that is fixed forever. The courts have say that a machine gun is treated differently than a pistol which is treated differently then a grenade rocket, etc etc.
See, I don't believe that. I think that the beauty of the Constitution is it is unchanging. I believe the framers were quite wise in crafting the document and as long as we consider Original Intent, the document is always relevant.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
I think the NFA was the wrong ruling.
BTW, have you shot a machine gun?
No, have only shot a rifle. It was required in school to learn how to shoot, open up and clean and put back together. I guess a group of late teens/early 20's girls were going to be the first defense against the Chinese invasion. LOL
So, even with the #2 amendment, the Constitution is interpreted over time. It is not a document that is fixed forever. The courts have say that a machine gun is treated differently than a pistol which is treated differently then a grenade rocket, etc etc.
See, I don't believe that. I think that the beauty of the Constitution is it is unchanging. I believe the framers were quite wise in crafting the document and as long as we consider Original Intent, the document is always relevant.
-
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
I think that the beauty of the Constitution is it is unchanging.
Note the word "amendment" in the term "the Second Amendment."
@Axtremus said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
I think that the beauty of the Constitution is it is unchanging.
Note the word "amendment" in the term "the Second Amendment."
Well, Captain Pendantic your EQ is plummeting again.
I know what I meant. I think most sentient beings in the room knew what I meant.
And then there's...You.
-
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
I think the NFA was the wrong ruling.
BTW, have you shot a machine gun?
No, have only shot a rifle. It was required in school to learn how to shoot, open up and clean and put back together. I guess a group of late teens/early 20's girls were going to be the first defense against the Chinese invasion. LOL
So, even with the #2 amendment, the Constitution is interpreted over time. It is not a document that is fixed forever. The courts have say that a machine gun is treated differently than a pistol which is treated differently then a grenade rocket, etc etc.
See, I don't believe that. I think that the beauty of the Constitution is it is unchanging. I believe the framers were quite wise in crafting the document and as long as we consider Original Intent, the document is always relevant.
See, I don't believe that. I think that the beauty of the Constitution is it is unchanging.
Exactly, that is your belief. Others in your country believe otherwise. I would suggest both beliefs hold equal merit. Constitutions are open for amendments should the need arise.
-
Fine. Amend it.
The American Constitution is difficult to amend. On purpose. Probably why it is one of the oldest among the Free World.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Fine. Amend it.
The American Constitution is difficult to amend. On purpose. Probably why it is one of the oldest among the Free World.
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Probably why it is one of the oldest among the Free World.
Isn't it also one of the shortest?
-
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Probably why it is one of the oldest among the Free World.
Isn't it also one of the shortest?
@George-K said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Isn't it also one of the shortest?
That might explain why you spend so much time arguing about what it means.
-
@George-K said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Isn't it also one of the shortest?
That might explain why you spend so much time arguing about what it means.
@Doctor-Phibes said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
@George-K said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Isn't it also one of the shortest?
That might explain why you spend so much time arguing about what it means.
-
Fine. Amend it.
The American Constitution is difficult to amend. On purpose. Probably why it is one of the oldest among the Free World.
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Fine. Amend it.
The American Constitution is difficult to amend. On purpose. Probably why it is one of the oldest among the Free World.
You are correct and it does have a tried and true amending formula.
-
Maybe the constitution does not change, but the interpretation of it changes. To me, no constitutional right is absolute. There are always some sort of restrictions on them.
And, there are many cases over the years where it was interpreted one way and maybe that was reversed.
With the #2 Amendment, at some point, courts interpreted it to mean that not all arms were covered. For example, I could go out and buy a nuclear bomb. Other arms (like machine guns) require a pretty detailed background examination, etc.
-
Maybe the constitution does not change, but the interpretation of it changes. To me, no constitutional right is absolute. There are always some sort of restrictions on them.
And, there are many cases over the years where it was interpreted one way and maybe that was reversed.
With the #2 Amendment, at some point, courts interpreted it to mean that not all arms were covered. For example, I could go out and buy a nuclear bomb. Other arms (like machine guns) require a pretty detailed background examination, etc.
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Maybe the constitution does not change, but the interpretation of it changes. To me, no constitutional right is absolute. There are always some sort of restrictions on them.
And, there are many cases over the years where it was interpreted one way and maybe that was reversed.
With the #2 Amendment, at some point, courts interpreted it to mean that not all arms were covered. For example, I could go out and buy a nuclear bomb. Other arms (like machine guns) require a pretty detailed background examination, etc.
When we really, really get ourselves screwed, is when we stray from original intent. The problem with the "Living Constitution" bullshit, is that the Constitution can mean whatever who is in power wants it to mean.
Human nature does not change. The thirst for power does not change. The desire of the powerful to trample whomever or whatever they need to, in order to maintain power or acquire more power has never abated since man started to walk on this planet.
The Living Constitution is just a gilding of Red Queen rules, by those who have the power to do so.
-
BTW, look at how interpreting a constitution any way the powerful may wish, is working in Russia right now.
-
BTW, look at how interpreting a constitution any way the powerful may wish, is working in Russia right now.
I suggest you not conflate the two, Russia and The USA, for a constitutional law library full of reasons starting with institutions of governance and the federalist system.
No comparison whatsoever and any attempt to make one will amount to nothing more than a straw man.
