Quoted:
Can we get get a troll rating everytime somebody uses the phrase "Trump's bumpstock ban"?

Look, we know you hate trump and this is the best way to virtue signal it, but you can at least do us a solid and link the bill he signed from congress making this law? BUT HE SAID IT RAWARADERZ.

I get it, but why not the equal outrage for the ATF, who is almost never mentioned in the same sentance when you all BUT MAH BUMPSTONKZ!! simp?

Shit rolls out of trumps mouth all the time, but you know the atf would be here anyway. At least admit that to yourself, if not here.

Just stop and vote for michael already, k?

Quoted:

He never will.

Quoted:


Sure.

Quoted:



What's the most upsetting :

A)  Desantis  dropped out.

B)  Endorses and supports Trump.
 
C) Florida has a state level bump stock ban.

Quoted:



What's the most upsetting :

A)  Desantis  dropped out.

B)  Endorses and supports Trump.
 
C) Florida has a state level bump stock ban.

Quoted:


You sound like someone desperate to pretend 2016 to 2021 never happened and that Trump is some unknown quantity rather than the buffoon who was at the BEST of times incapable of accomplishing anything.

Quoted:
Bro could literally sign an awb and people here would would claim "yeah well Bidens would have been worse"

We had a better choice.

https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/439317/2bv068-1342905.jpg

Quoted:


Florida RINOs agree with Trump on Gun Control. Desantis has passed pro gun bills in FL. It has been an uphill battle for him.

Can you tell me anything Pro Gun Trump did?

Quoted:
If preferring to have a President that doesn't make anti-gun old hags gush sand out of their dried up twats like a sandstorm on the Sahara makes me a "Share Blue Shill" so be it.


https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180228203137-dianne-feinstein-donald-trump-super-tease.jpg

Quoted:
Lots of obtuse dimwits here that sound like the left.
GD: "Trump wasn't perfect  and fucked this specific thing up"

ONLY trump  cult autist:
REEEE HERP-DURRR SORRY YER GIRL LOST REEEEEE!!!
REEEE VOTE FOR BIDEN REEEE.

Quoted:


DeSantis is a cuck loser whose supporters don't even give a shit who he endorses.

Quoted:


I respect that you at least are willing to admit it.

Quoted:
Supreme Court Back-and-Forth on Bump Stocks Creates Nail-Biter Anticipation
Donald Trump's Bump Stock Ban is Having a Negative Domino Effect on All Gun Ownership.

https://content.osgnetworks.tv/photopacks/supreme-court-bump-stock-case-nail-biter-_492506/492520_supreme-court-bump-stock-case-01_hero_1200x800.jpg

February 29, 2024
By David Codrea for FIREARMS NEWS

The questions and arguments weren’t going as some had envisioned in front of the Supreme Court Wednesday in Garland v. Cargill, the much-anticipated bump stock case. At the end of the day, the best word to describe the court was “divided,” and the outcome for gun owners was uncertain.  

Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian H. Fletcher argued on behalf of the government and Johnathan F. Mitchell represented gun store owner and respondent Michael Cargill.  It was not the slam dunk some YouTube “gunfluencers” had been priming their followers into believing the case would be, with further hopes that, when won, they’d have a beachhead from which victories against other ATF rules, notably on frames and receivers, and on pistol stabilizing braces, would be launched. Precedent would be made.  

Common sense tells us that bump stocks are not machineguns. But so many technical questions by supposedly “conservative” justices, left gun owners wondering at the end of the day if any would betray them, and if so, how many. And that has political implications. After all, the bump stock ban was ultimately Donald Trump’s baby. And the major appeal he has gun owners in November is their counting on his appointment of “Second Amendment-friendly” justices.  

Inarguably, Trumps picks during his first term, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, are “better” than the Democrat loyalists on the bench. It goes without saying that Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Kenji Brown Jackson will favor the government’s side, and Jackson showed her understanding when she opined, “The function of this trigger is to cause this kind of damage, 800 rounds a second or whatever.” (Yes, she actually said that.)  
This pretty much defined the day. Those expecting a Second Amendment defense decrying Chevron deference overreach instead heard the justices trying to grasp competing definitions of “function of a trigger” along with scenarios unlikely to persuade judges who equate “common use” with widespread commercial popularity.  

After attorney Jonathan Mitchell suggested bump stocks might help someone with a medical condition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "Why would even a person with arthritis, why would Congress think they needed to shoot 400 to 7- or 800 rounds of ammunition under any circumstance?"

There were no other arguments to introduce…? Really?

“We don't think function of the trigger means movement of the trigger.  We think it means act of the shooter,” Brian Fletcher asserted. “That's how it was used at the time … including the president of the NRA when he proposed the language that became this statute to Congress.”  He meant Karl Frederick, NRA president in 1934 testifying to Congress on the National Firearms Act, who was proud to help pass Washington DC’s strict gun laws and also endorsed, among other things, prohibition on concealed carry without a justifiable need license, waiting periods, turning lists of purchasers over to police, and more.   “The problem with the government's argument… is that the phrase ‘single function of the trigger’ can only be construed grammatically to focus on the trigger's function and not on what the shooter does to the trigger,” attorney Mitchell insisted. “The trigger is the device that initiates the firing of the weapon. A bump stock does not change the trigger in any way.  It does not alter the nature of the trigger… a bump stock equipped rifle can fire only one shot per function of the trigger because the trigger must reset after every shot and must function again before another shot can be fired.”  

This was the crux of the proceedings, but there were other telling statements made by the “friendly” judges that raised concerns.  

Justice Thomas seemed interested in comparing how a bump stock works as compared to an M16. At times, he either was having doubts or playing devil’s advocate, asking “why we shouldn’t look at a broader definition” due to “carnage” from machineguns during Prohibition.  

Chief Justice Roberts questioned where and how you place your hands, and later asked “I think we -you would agree that the bump stock accelerates the rate of fire? Why wouldn't you then take the further step of saying it changes the nature of the trigger in doing that?”  

In addition to technical questions, Justice Barret added “I think the question is, why didn't Congress pass that litigation --I mean that legislation to --to make this cover it more clearly?”  “I can certainly understand why these items should be made illegal, but we're dealing with a statute that was enacted in the 1930s, and through many administrations, the government took the position that these bump stocks are not machineguns,” Justice Gorsuch offered, then expressing concerns that this interpretive rule “ would render between a quarter of a million and a half million people federal felons and not even through an APA process they could challenge.”  Justice Kavanaugh followed up on Gorsuch’s concerns that people unaware of the prohibition could be convicted, and questioned the grammar, saying “people don't function things.   They may pull things, they may throw things, but they don't function things.”  

“What is the situation of people who have possessed bump stocks between the time of the ATF's new rule and the present day or between the time of the new rule and the Fifth Circuit decision?” Justice Alito asked.  “Can they be prosecuted?” (Bottom line: Yes.)  

“Why isn't the function of the trigger to release the hammer from the sear so that the hammer can swing forward and strike?” he asked. “Isn't that the most straightforward interpretation of this?” He later asked the question that goes to the heart of the argument that this is the purview of Congress, not of ATF: “Can you imagine a legislator thinking we should ban machineguns, but we should not ban bump stocks?  Is there any reason why a legislator might reach that judgment?”  

Now we wait and see what the Court decides. What’s clear though, even if they don’t disappoint us on this decision, is that their view of the Second Amendment, particularly Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, and Barrett, and probably Roberts, who has let us down before, does not extend to a militia of the whole people entitled to arms in common use at the time by the same militaries the Constitution expects them to prevail over. As for their deference to gun bans being legitimate if enacted by Congress instead of ATF, “shall not be infringed” makes no exceptions for legislators.  

They’re arguing over minutiae, over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Trigger function doesn’t matter, we the people are entitled to have arms as our birthright, including Justice Thomas’s M16 and more, what Tench Coxe called “every terrible implement of the soldier.” And no branch of government has the legitimate delegated Constitutional authority to say otherwise.  

What’s also clear is that unless the court is shored up with more justices who understand that, this court is not ready to take on repeal of the Hughes Amendment or the NFA itself, and bans or “redefined” classifications on semiautos, new transfer bans, tax stamp spikes, magazine capacity bans, and more, are just a Democrat sweep away.  
 
EDITOR’S NOTE: The US Supreme Court is not in agreement with the Founding Fathers on why citizens are to own military weapons (or even semi-auto rifles), and because of that, gun owners, gun organizations, and 2nd Amendment attorneys should expect and prepare legal strategies for court losses. As long as Second Amendment activists, as well as conservative politicians, use defenses for ownership such as gun collecting, “fun shooting”, or only self-defense against robbers and rapists, states will continue to ban semi-auto firearms and their accessories. There is now a real threat that even registered transferable machinegun ownership will be further restricted or possibly ended altogether. The Founders wanted the citizenry to possess military weapons as a defense against foreign invasion and possible tyranny imposed by their own government which history shows us often results in loss of liberty and genocide – that is the purpose of the Second Amendment (which is a government-recognized God-given right), not just for defense against common criminals. It is nonsensical for any politician, judge, or even 2A advocate to say, “The Second Amendment was put in place as a civilian defense against tyranny.” and then in the same breath state, “But, machine guns and other dangerous military weapons should be banned from civilian ownership.” If the Founders didn’t want the citizenry to own the same weapons as the military, they would have restricted them to crossbows and catapults instead of muskets and cannons (the most modern weapons available at the time), no such restriction was ever put in place by them. History hasn’t changed. Human nature hasn’t changed.


Original article here.

Quoted:
Watching trumpies argue "lesser of two weasels" is surreal. They are absolutists, unless unless it's $3200 in gubmint cheese.

Quoted:
Watching trumpies argue "lesser of two weasels" is surreal. They are absolutists, unless unless it's $3200 in gubmint cheese.

Quoted:
“I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record.” - DJT

"Don't worry about the NRA, they're on our side," Half of you are so afraid of the NRA. There's nothing to be afraid of. ... And you know what, if they're not with you, we have to fight them every once in a while, that's OK. Sometimes we're going to have to be very tough and we're going to have to fight 'em." “Joe can you do that? Can you add what Amy and Dianne have(AWB), can you add them in? We’re going to get it passed!” -DJT

I think the Republicans are going to be great and lead the charge, along with the Democrats," Trump said of passing legislation on gun control. He added later, "We have tremendous support for really common sense, sensible, important background checks!” - DJT

Just like they don't want to solve the DACA problem, why didn't the Democrats pass gun control legislation when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration. Because they didn't want to, and now they just talk! -DJT

I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue - I hope! -DJT

“Take the Guns first go through due process second” -DJT

"I'd like to think about it. I mean nobody's talking about silencers very much. I did talk about the bump stock and we had it banned and we're looking at that. I'm going to seriously look at it. I don't love the idea of it," -DJT

“The Obama Administration legalized bump stocks. BAD IDEA ‘As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS with a mandated comment period. We will BAN all devices that turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns.” - DJT

“I don’t know why anyone needs an AR-15” - DJT

Quoted:
Watching trumpies argue "lesser of two weasels" is surreal. They are absolutists, unless unless it's $3200 in gubmint cheese.

Quoted:



You just understand 4D chess real estate.

Quoted:



How anyone can look at those quotes and shill for that fuck boy is beyond me.

Quoted:



You just understand 4D chess real estate.

Quoted:
Being realistic. Bump stocks are not a gun. They make a gun shoot like a machine gun. Therefore I think they will get the ban hammer or ATF class 3 regulated. It may be ex post facto to have you destroy them. So if you got one you may have to register it. It would be best if they left things alone. But that’s not going to happen. Worst case is we get bans for all kinds of accessories by lib states.

In my opinion, this might not have been the hill to die on. It may have not so good unintended consequences.

Quoted:

Yeah because refusing to vote for a gun grabbing money redistributing previously registered democrat that advocates for the suspension of the constitution makes one an absolutist.
Lol.

Quoted:

The cowardly part is they're too weak kneed to just admit that's their goal.

Quoted:


Trump Fans 2016 We are going to open the NFA Registry! SAC! OTC Suppressors! Lock her up! The Wall! Pay off the Debt!

Trump Fans 2024 Well at least he isn’t Biden! Bump stocks and Suppressors are Range Toys!

Quoted:

Absolutely disgusting, ain't it?

Quoted:


If you all backed Cruz like I did none of this would be happening.

Quoted:


Was just thinking about that avatar.

Quoted:
It would be so great if we could talk about the actual case going on here instead of bitching about Trump or any other fucking president.

What's done is done, should it be overturned? Of course, but none of that has shit to do with Trump now, he shouldn't have done it, but he did.

It must be nice to be absolutely perfect, I'm sure those of you bitching about Trump have NEVER made a mistake because you were upset or scared.

I give up, it seems like every single threat turns into a Trump or Ukraine bashing thread no matter what. Some of you need to get your head out of your ass and look at the future instead of the past.

Trump isn't my favorite person, and I don't think he should have run this time, but here we are and I'm going to vote for him no matter what.