this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024

-37 points (15.1% liked)

Conservative

386 readers

43 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Blamemeta@lemm.ee

ConMod@lemm.ee

wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee

-37

Texas gun store owner says Supreme Court should limit government 'power' in 'bump stock' ban case (www.foxnews.com)

submitted 8 months ago by wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee to c/conservative@lemm.ee

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] PizzaMane@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago

"Fossil fuel exec says Supreme Court should limit government power on climate policy"

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

Bump stocks just provide the feeling of shooting an automatic, which shouldn't be restricted imo.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -4 points 8 months ago

We are on the same page. I get the lawsuit. You want to keep the government in check but I don’t own one, never would and don’t see a purpose for them.

I have heard the argument they are for disabled shooters and not to be ableist, but if you can’t safely operate a firearms. You shouldn’t be shooting one.

[+] gobills@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What kind of weapon do you hunt with?

[–] gobills@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago

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?

[–] ConMod@lemm.ee -3 points 8 months ago

Removed, R1, no slurs.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -4 points 8 months ago

I don’t mind the ban. I don’t see bump stocks having a purpose but I don’t like how it was banned. It doesn’t meet the definition of a machine gun. It’s still one round for each trigger pull.

[+] uzi@lemmy.ca -9 points 8 months ago (15 children)

".... 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.

[–] nac82@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] nac82@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] nac82@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -5 points 8 months ago

There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership.

No that isn't clear at all.

It was originally thought it was a right given to the states and not the people. It has not become a right of the people.

It some states it was mandatory that you owned a gun and ammo in case you were called up.

The 2nd amendment was written to allow the states to build militias. In return the federal government was supposed to a small or zero standing army. That isn't how it all worked out.

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments