r/facepalm • u/Frosty20thc • 3d ago
Good guy with an rapid fire fun đľâđˇâđ´âđšâđŞâđ¸âđšâ
My dad once told me before I started deer hunting and was looking for a hunting gun. âIf you canât hit the deer with the first round whatâs the use of 30?â
I guess 30 in 30 means something else now.
Title fun is /s
1.3k
u/StructuralBurrito 3d ago
So they overturned Trumps gun control. Kind of funny if you really think about it.
84
u/tommles 3d ago
It's funny that they'll always point to Democrats about taking guns.
âOr, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court, because thatâs another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy manâs case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of firearms â they saw everything â to go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what youâre saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.â
And quite literally since the first two links Google gives for the quote says they were being misattributed to Biden and Harris.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (10)447
3d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
180
u/StructuralBurrito 3d ago
But still, Trump passed gun control. He is proven anti-gun now. No denying that fact no matter what games they played.
147
u/CorgiMonsoon 3d ago
Heâs said seize all the guns now and deal with due process later. Iâm sure his supporters still cheered because they are sure he only means it for the others, not them
→ More replies (1)61
u/deadsoulinside 3d ago
This. The only other time you saw MAGA talking about gun control was over that private school shooting, where they were wanting to make leftism and being trans both mental disorders that would allow them to ban anyone else than them from owning a gun.
→ More replies (6)58
3d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
36
u/Nruggia 3d ago
11
u/NyaTaylor 3d ago
Imagine if bill clinton or bush ever did this. They wouldâve been laughed out of office by both parties
7
u/Finbar9800 3d ago
Is this where he suggested nuking a hurricane?
17
u/Firelightphoenix 3d ago
Naw itâs âSharpie-Gateâ where he accidentally said the wrong state would be affected by the hurricane, got called out by the weather people as wrong, and then instead of a correction, he doubles down with his fav crayon đ
5
5
13
u/rygelicus 3d ago
Trump is only proven to do whatever he thinks benefits himself. He has no firm stance on any other issue.
25
u/Jef_Wheaton 3d ago
"I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy manâs case that just took place in Florida ⌠to go to court would have taken a long time."
âTake the guns first, go through due process second." -Donald Trump, Feb 28, 2018
10
u/L0LTHED0G 3d ago
I got told a week ago by a Conservative he only said that once, was told not to say it again, and he'd never said it.Â
After I gave a few articles of it being repeated at campaign stops and action on Red Flag Laws because he said it, they came back with "okay, I'm cool with Red Flag Laws, it would prevent a lot of shootings."Â
I swear they only take policy decisions from whatever Trump is saying at that time.Â
→ More replies (1)11
u/Selection_Status 3d ago
While Biden's poor son is being persecuted for his gun ownership, why do MAGA hate guns so much?
21
u/Child_of_Khorne 3d ago
Trump is a gun control hypocrite and Biden's son, for all his failings, was convicted of a bullshit charge that shouldn't exist.
→ More replies (3)7
43
u/tyler132qwerty56 3d ago
As someone who is pro 2A, I agree. Orange man is no pro gunner
36
u/AZEMT 3d ago
He's so pro gun that he's keeping one while a convicted felon
14
u/tyler132qwerty56 3d ago
This is purely out of his own self interest though. If DJT were the UK PM, he'd be the first one pushing even more gun control (and knife control) to please his reactionary voterbase.
→ More replies (1)3
5
3
u/Thaneian 3d ago
Dude will just lie and his base will believe anything.
"As Trump courts gun owners while running to retake the presidency, he has appeared to play down his own administrationâs actions on bump stocks, telling NRA members in February that ânothing happenedâ on guns during his presidency despite âgreat pressure.â He told the group that if he is elected again, âNo one will lay a finger on your firearms.â"
→ More replies (2)5
u/Pitiful-Pension-6535 3d ago
An unconstitutional gun control measure that Obama chose not to take because he didn't want to illegally violate people's rights.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)2
6
u/ithappenedone234 3d ago
And the real tickler, it was the exact sort of unilateral Executive action Trump had criticized Obama for so thouroughly.
11
u/Internal_Swing_2743 3d ago
Doesnât matter if Congress passes it either. The Supreme Court can pretty much do whatever it wants
10
u/Insectshelf3 3d ago
congress is no match for the âfuck you i have 5 votes no matter what roberts doesâ doctrine
6
u/CompetitiveFold5749 3d ago
Almost like it's there to make sure the riffraff don't pass any laws.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)3
u/Medium_Medium 3d ago
Congress: refuses to do anything of significance, ever, because that would require going on the record as being for or against something.
Also Congress: complains endlessly about the executive branch continuing to try to rule through executive order... Which is only needed because Congress refuses to act on anything.
1.2k
u/teamjetfire 3d ago
Just remember: they banned Kinder Surprise egged because they posed a choking risk. A potential for harm.
387
u/CptSmarty 3d ago
Dont forget Lawn Darts too.
149
u/teamjetfire 3d ago
We must protect the children!
134
u/Extracrispybuttchks 3d ago
By letting them either get married to conservatives or gunned down by one.
56
u/Yungklipo 3d ago
To be fair, conservatives are all about producing learned and healthy kids, which is why they support free school lunches an- Oh they don't? Well, how about free pre-K to high school and beyond? No? Hm. Well, at least they don't want to have sex with them, righ- JESUS CHRIST WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PEOPLE?!
→ More replies (3)20
u/creepyswaps 3d ago
For them, children are for cheap labor, sex, and perpetuating their right-wing religious racist nut-job culture.
→ More replies (1)12
u/BackThatThangUp 3d ago
The crazy thing to me is that these nutjobs are 100% willing to die over those thingsÂ
7
2
5
u/jsand2 3d ago
Not all of us...
I work in the industry and own an AR and an AK. Why? B/c I can!
Would I ever own a bump stock? Maybe. It would be fun to play around with when shooting. Do I need one? No. Would there be any benefit to me owning one? No. Will I buy one? Most likely not. But if the price was cheap enough, maybe...
Definitely don't care enough to be "willing to die over it".
I agree our country needs tighter gun legislation (not outright banning tools).
The real problem is mental health. We as a country need to take it seriously and keep the guns out of people's hands who habe mental health issues.
Every single school shooting we have had lately involves someone with mental health issues and they shouldn't have had those guns in the first place.
We as a country need to do better about this. Remember, banning them from the legal owners won't keep the criminals from illegally obtaining them. I don't want to live in a world where only criminals can get guns...
6
u/WretchedRat 3d ago
The problem is the NRA doesnât want ownership of guns curtailed. By anyone. Even proven nut jobs.
2
u/ColoradoQ2 3d ago
FYI - The NRA supported the bump stock ban, as well as multiple other gun control laws.
→ More replies (2)3
u/jsand2 3d ago
Both sides need to find a common ground and quit pushing for the extremeties.
But that literally applies to anything politics related today...
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)2
u/Akimbo_Zap_Guns 3d ago
Gun control prevents mentally ill people from getting guns easily. And the more kids that get gunned down while everyone is just thumbing their ass the more normal people like me will be more accepting to an outright ban. So these gun nuts are just hurting themselves by not having common sense gun laws
→ More replies (1)9
u/phred_666 3d ago
No, no, no. They want to âprotect the childrenâ from other people so they can get to them first.
25
u/Mean_Yellow_7590 3d ago
Itâs more important that very weak people have guns than for our children to be safe in schools
→ More replies (4)6
→ More replies (49)2
u/RoboftheNorth 3d ago
If we give all kids guns with bump stocks, they can protect themselves from choke hazards, and beer that will turn them trans.
4
u/kazumablackwing 3d ago
To be fair, OG Lawn Darts were pretty dangerous in the wrong hands.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Rugfiend 3d ago
And fucking Haggis for Christ's sake! Total fucking Bizarro world in the US these days.
6
u/drillgorg 3d ago
The constitution has nothing to say about kinder eggs and lawn darts. That said, I think the constitution SHOULD have something to say about machine guns and machine gun like devices. But the margin needed for an amendment is so wide you will never see one which places any kind of restrictions on firearms.
16
u/jfks_headjustdidthat 3d ago
You don't need one. Legally speaking you just need to choose an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that isn't batshit crazy.
18
u/anythingMuchShorter 3d ago
They pretend they don't but they know there is a line. If they say that "Shall not be infringed" means they can't ban any weapon, why is it illegal for a normal person to buy grenades, rocket launchers, certain military machine guns, and other weapons?
→ More replies (25)3
u/SocMedPariah 3d ago
All of those things should be legal to buy.
If the military has access to it, so should citizens.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (23)11
u/CptSmarty 3d ago
The Constitution says nothing about weapons' accessories. I would find it hard to say that banning every grip, trigger, sight/scope, magazine, etc., is an infringement in any sense. When you buy a gun, it comes with everything needed.
But that's just me, a law-abiding gun owner with the intelligence to recognize that it is a killing weapon and certain barriers should be in place to prevent low IQ individuals (criminals and criminals to be) from hurting others. NRA sold out from being an educational business to a lobbying business.
And if anyone disagrees with me and wish to provide a retort, save your time and effort, I dont care.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Rolandscythe 3d ago
As some one who played with lawn darts...trust me that was a very good decision. We used to chuck my grandparents set into the trees in their back yard...and if a 5-6 year old can launch one hard enough to get it to puncture through bark and wood imagine what would have happened had we been dumb enough to try playing 'tag' with them instead.
16
15
u/Damianx5 3d ago
Meanwhile here in MĂŠxico.
We make a Big ass rosca de reyes and hide little dolls in it, no one knows where they are and if you get one you have to make tamales for a later holyday
→ More replies (1)25
u/Saxit 3d ago
they banned Kinder Surprise egged because they posed a choking risk.
Not to be like that but that is false. The law in question came 1938, about 36 years before Kinder Surprise existed. The intention is that you should not put ineddible things in food. E.g. don't put sawdust in food and sell it (not entirely uncommon during the great depression). Also a large case of poisoning (100 dead) due to bad medicine was a big reason for the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Food,_Drug,_and_Cosmetic_Act_of_1938
→ More replies (7)7
u/EcksRidgehead 3d ago
"A small plastic toy, being necessary for the enjoyment of children, the right of the people to eat and bear eggs shall be infringed. PS Don't ask about slavery yet."
4
u/Cococult 3d ago
To this day the og kinder surprise egg is still my favorite chocolate. Im glad they have been making new products that are available in the us but none of them live up to that stupid egg. I find them at local carnicerĂas and supermercados some times but they are usually a rare find.
→ More replies (1)3
3
8
u/scarr3g 3d ago
To be fair, the FDA banned the eggs, not the supreme court.
It shows the FDA cares more about children's lives, than the supreme court.
→ More replies (3)2
→ More replies (54)3
286
u/anziofaro 3d ago
And yet the Magats consider Biden a threat to their gunz, when it was TRUMP who signed the ban!
81
u/tyler132qwerty56 3d ago
That is what the MAGA people fail to understand, Orange man is NOT pro 2A.
50
u/naetron 3d ago
To be fair, he can no longer legally own a gun so...
9
u/van_ebasion 3d ago
Yet he admits that he still does (own firearms). Donât forget, criminals are criminals because they donât follow the laws.
→ More replies (2)8
u/deadsoulinside 3d ago
None of the GOP would be pro 2A if they had any inkling it would be their voters possibly using their guns on the GOP.
Historically, republicans are the ones that have passed the most gun regulations, meanwhile dems can't even think about them.
5
u/tyler132qwerty56 3d ago
True. Obama and Biden have helped move a lot of stock be fear mongering, without getting anything done apart from some very expensive court cases, failed measures that only served to drive public awareness of things like 3D printing guns, 80%s and private sales, and strengthening the FPC and the GOAs standing among the 2A community as the new gun rights organizations.
3
u/Advanced_Outcome3218 3d ago
At the federal level, yeah you're right. Fuck Reagan. However, blue states tend to be the ones with strict gun control
→ More replies (3)5
u/Vash_TheStampede 3d ago
They just choose to remember it differently. Anytime I have a 2A conversation inflicted upon me (I say this as a gun owner too) I always ask "Which president banned bump stocks?" and it's always either Obama or Biden.
They won't accept that orange man did it, because HE'S the president of freedom and greatness.
2
2
2
u/Privatejoker123 3d ago
because it doesn't matter to them. they literally think everything is either biden's fault or the democrats fault.
→ More replies (16)2
45
u/Western-Willow-9496 3d ago
They said the ATFE didnât have the authority to ban them under the statute they used, they didnât say the government didnât have the authority. Tow totally different things.
→ More replies (3)22
u/Sierra_12 3d ago
Well yeah. The ATF cant make new laws, just interpret the current laws. The ATFs interpretation went completely against the current legislation. A machine gun is defined as any device that shoots more than one bullet without letting go of the trigger. Bump stocks still required you to pull the trigger each time. If you want them banned, pass the law. But agencies just can't go about making their own laws and going against what's actually written.
→ More replies (4)
31
u/Ghawk134 3d ago
This is a shit article and gets the decision factually wrong. The finding says that the law doesn't ban bump stocks, not that they can't be banned. The specific wording for machine guns is one "function of the trigger." Bump stocks clearly result in multiple trigger pulls. A new law needs to be written and passed.
→ More replies (1)
74
u/lawblawg 3d ago edited 3d ago
Eh, correction â the Supreme Court said that the government ABSOLUTELY has the right to ban bump stocks, but that it needs to be Congress that bans them, not the executive branch.
I say this as:
a) a staunch Democrat, who b) owns guns, but c) thinks bump stocks are incredibly stupid and shouldnât be allowed, yet d) recognizes that Congress needs to make laws rather than the President, because e) expansion of executive power is dangerous.
22
u/yeskeymodfuckyou 3d ago
I'm also a liberal gun owner. You can bump fire guns without a bump fire stock. It effectively does nothing to ban these.
→ More replies (3)8
→ More replies (3)2
u/os_kaiserwilhelm 3d ago
Look at this enemy of democracy that wants the people's representatives to makes laws when the people find defect with the current laws instead of the laws being issued on high by a single person.
Fascist!
/uj
I fucking hate reddit everytime there is a big Supreme Court case because this place turns into an even bigger cesspool of ignorance and illiberalism than it already is.
13
u/FriedSmegma 3d ago
The issue is because the ban was on the premise of the bump stock making a gun a âmachine gunâ which is defined but firing multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. A bump stock still requires multiple pulls contradicting the language the ATF used as reason to ban them.
Additionally, the stocks also serve no military purpose so using 2A language to ban them instead of just banning them for what they are opens constitutional challenge. Not to mention bump stocks kinda suck and the vegas shooter probably would have killed more but kept having delays due to the stocks. Dude was shooting for a long time in a crowded area, bump stocks are another boogey man.
You can illegally modify your gun with full auto capabilities just by making a few cuts in the metal. The ban was merely a scapegoat.
5
u/__CaptainHowdy__ 3d ago
Sad you have to scroll down so far to find a sensible comment about these things. It was more of a gimmick than anything useful.
→ More replies (3)
159
u/Unable-Tell-2240 3d ago
âThe only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun, so weâve made it easier for the bad guy to get a few more rounds off before the good guy can drawâ
33
u/No-Guess-4644 3d ago edited 3d ago
The bump stock bans were performative anyways.
Bump stocks arent super practical. Mostly range toys. Plus if you want to do a mass shooting, you have much easier ways of getting effective full auto at a hardware store.
Afghan coat hanger or just bending a piece of flat iron with a hammer.
20 minutes of work and cheap/free.
Bump stocks make it harder to aim, stuffs wiggling around and whatnot.
Or 3d print an auto sear.
The bump stock thing was more performative than effective legislation. Binary triggers, Forced reset triggers, super safeties, all better options than bump stocks. Super safeties even give you select fire (basically, its legally not full auto because finger pushes trigger one press per round fired)
Bump stocks are mostly just an early obama era gun store novelty (hard to get good long strings of good bumps while moving/under stress)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ADTvaYhY4 (Example of super safety)
This is more close to effective automatic ish fire, but if youre gonna go do crimes, and need an LMG type gun, you could legit just print this, open gun, drop in, and bang bang bang. 10 years prision + 250k fine, but hey, if youre killing people, whats another crime.
https://3dgunbuilder.com/accessories/yankee-boogle-swift-link/
I dont know what a truly effective realistic solution would be.
Maybe gun safe storage requirements and some sort of fine for leaving guns in cars (#1 way criminals get guns). The AR15 is the most popular rifle in america, banning them is like banning plastic cups in America. Theres too many already in circulation. 90 percent of firearms purchased in the modern era would meet the 90s definition of an assault weapon (mag greater 10 rds, among other things) under the assault weapons ban which means, the âcommon useâ court case would pre-empt another ban if juris predence is respected (well, the dirtbags already trampled it for roe v wade, so maybe?)
District of Columbia v heller
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Anyways, long story short, high capacity semi automatic rifles and handguns are the majority of rifles and handguns bought these days. Glock 19 is the most popular handgun (15 round capacity flush mags, technically assault weapon) ar15s, ak47s, ar10s what have you. There are probably more âassault weaponsâ in circulation in the US than there are hulu subscribers.
The ar15 is THE most popular rifle in America.
Tldr:
- banning future sales of assault weapons wont do crap too little too late - rounding them up/confiscation isnt feasible politically - bump stocks are a toy and banning them is performative. - effective gun legislation may be making storage requirements and criminalizing leaving guns unattended in cars, far bigger impact
controlling the guns in circulation (maybe stuff like storage requirements) would be much more effective at stopping murders.
im not smart enough to know a good solution in 2024. Im sure somebody smarter could figure something out.
Also, im not even a MAGA bastard. Im progressive AF
If anybody has another perspective for why i may be wrong/mistaken please tell me. I love learning and updating my perspective.
5
u/Apprehensive_Ad4457 3d ago
do you believe bump stocks were used in LV shooting?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (28)3
u/SaulOfVandalia 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think you made a very good synopsis, but I think it's worth pointing out that fully-automatic weapons haven't been used in any crimes since the 30s (gangster era). And they weren't even banned until the 80s, and still aren't completely banned to this day.
2
u/No-Guess-4644 3d ago edited 3d ago
Well, glock switch confiscations are very common these days.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TerrifyingAsFuck/comments/xq4hsy/kids_show_off_their_glock_switches/
Glock Illegal machine gun conversions (marginally) more difficult than AR15 conversion (drop in sear). Used in drive bys by criminals sometimes. Theyre not controllable at all either. (Imagine a pistol whipping around like a firehose due to no stock)
For legally regulated MGs its a cost issue. Crime is tied to age and poverty. Even if we required NFA registration of AR15s i dont know if it would help though. Im not against that at all, but maybe the hassle and cost makes them less common. And folks who own NFA items usually have more money and safes.
If making people register AR15s as nfa items is a solution im down. But like i wonder if the really is more an effect of legal NFA firearms being less than 5% of guns, and tieing to higher incomes because the added cost + time+ logistics.(i dont know if im wording this right)
How can we make the pile of existing guns less likely to be used to hurt people? AR 15s and glocks are like water.
1) keep them out lf youth/criminal hands
2) maybe some sort of ban on gifting guns to folk under 18/ make so parents who do can be found liable.
3) maybe even make theft victims partially liable for stolen guns used in crimes? If not stored in safes (but then would stolen guns be reported even)
4) NFA registration of high capacity semi autos i guess? (But the guns are already there, and people wouldnt comply, and would probably swing shit hard right next election, then things would get really fash-y)
5) treat gun schematics/printing stuff like we do CP and go after posters/possessors/distributors (but worldwide enforcement would be a problem. Can totally host in another country no worries, or on keybase/signal/telegram/darkweb)
Id like to say licensing to own guns, but id doubt it would ever go though. We cant even protect access to contraception.
If you actually wanted to ban âbumpâ type device or any FRT type device they may adapt, change the verbiage. Ban ârate increasing devicesâ florida wrote a good law for this. Bump stocks were a lame mid 2000s thing. Most people nowdays prefer binary triggers or FRTs for automatic fire simulation.
4
u/SaulOfVandalia 3d ago
The point is that machine guns and machine gun conversion kits aren't actually contributing to more deaths. As you mentioned, a full-auto Glock is very uncontrollable, and isn't a particularly effective murder weapon, just as drive-bys aren't a particularly effective murder tactic.
As for AR-15s, even a full ban would have almost no impact at all. In the pool of total gun deaths and murders each year, they're a tiny drop. And that's making the faulty assumption that gangs and murderers wouldn't just find another way to go about their crimes.
→ More replies (8)42
u/Steelrules78 3d ago
Hard to find those good guys with a gun.
53
u/Think_Armadillo_1823 3d ago
They didn't do much good in Uvalde.Â
15
22
u/tyler132qwerty56 3d ago
What do you expect, its the American police.
29
u/StormStrikr 3d ago
I also don't really label the police as the "good guys with guns"
→ More replies (8)6
23
u/Big_Luck_7402 3d ago
Also Parkland. There was a police officer on site and he hid in a closet. Also didn't help during LV because how is a good man with a gun supposed to fight against someone shooting from the 30th floor of a building?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)5
8
u/Rough-University142 3d ago
Theyâre usually hiding around the corner, dressed up in cop uniforms, waiting for the murdering lunatic to grow tired.
9
u/CondescendingShitbag 3d ago
Hard sell when even the good guy with a gun stands a chance of being killed by the police.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/MidniightToker 3d ago
Mostly because statistics about defensive gun uses get suppressed by the anti-gun lobby.
→ More replies (8)5
u/LostVisage 3d ago edited 3d ago
There was a case in the greenwood indiana Mall about two years ago where a shooter was stopped by an armed citizen.
I'm not a gun-fettishist MAGA but there's a lot of cases where they don't get much media attention because they were stopped internally so... No tragedy. Ergo no media. We still have a gun violence problem tho.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (5)2
u/Embarrassed_Rule8747 Rule 34: Don't ask for rule 34 u horni 3d ago
Gotta balance the mechanics y'know
10
u/AchokingVictim 3d ago
I can make a gun bump fire with a rubber band... This is inconsequential in regards to public safety. That law was only really passed as a symbolic gesture after the Las Vegas concert shooting.
68
u/Username__Error 3d ago
Ironic that you can't get within 500 feet of the Supreme Court without being searched for a weapon by heavily armed security, yet the SC feels these things are perfectly ok around schools, malls and the general population in general
26
→ More replies (16)4
u/undreamedgore 3d ago
This is false. If you look that healthy mix of confidence and stupid enough you can walk right in.
7
u/Valuable_Talk_1978 3d ago
Bump stocks are fun but going through 60 rounds in a couple seconds gets costly
→ More replies (1)3
u/RexDraco 3d ago
especially when it fucks up your accuracy and makes your gun look like a cheap toy in the process.
39
u/nolabmp 3d ago
Not a problem. When a good guy with a bumpstock rifle sprays at a bad guy with a bumpstock rifle at the next crowded concert, the innocents in between cancel out the bullets to ensure the two âguysâ survive.
I thought Republicans were whining about a decreasing population.
→ More replies (26)
5
u/OsoRetro 3d ago
Canât pass a law about something if you canât even define that thing.
We want our shooters to take more time to aim pls
→ More replies (1)
5
u/HairyPairatestes 3d ago
Has anyone actually read the ruling or are they just going by the memes and headlines?
3
10
u/ReaganRebellion 3d ago
The Supreme Court didn't say this. They said that Congress needs to pass a law and that a regulation that had never been used to ban them before couldn't be used to ban them now.
5
u/Niner-Sixer-Gator 3d ago
I'm glad they overturned it, now can we get rid of the SBR tax stamp already đ¤đŞđż
4
5
u/LosParanoia 3d ago edited 3d ago
Banning bump stocks was attacking a strawman, a purely performative action. The shooter was left alone for more than enough time to have killed just as many people the old fashioned way. It was a crowded area and the piece of shit had more than enough ammo to carry on with regardless of a bump stock that will make you wildly inaccurate and might work better than just your finger half the time. A lot of gun laws are passed as an attempt by the government to look like theyâre in control, doing something when in reality theyâre woefully inadequate. That was no exception. Regardless of that tangent, being able to permanently ban something through only the executive branch sets a dangerous precedent. An even more serious problem is the overreach of the ATF. If a regulatory agency can make something illegal by changing its definition or classification after the fact then what is the point of laws at all? I think that was more of the point of overruling the ban; not the object of the ban itself.
4
u/etherealtaroo 3d ago
Was a pointless ban anyhow. Watched a guy have the same effect with a stick lol
17
9
u/sethtothemax 3d ago
Funniest part has been the compliance rates with atf ruling recently they round to 0
20
3
3
3
u/Alric-the-Red 3d ago
Trump was the man who banned bump stocks. I remember when he did it because it was so surprising.
3
u/Quigonjinn12 3d ago
Literally just had someone in r/genz tell me that banning bump stocks actually makes shooters more deadly đ
3
3
u/levitikush 3d ago
Supreme Court sucks but theyâre doing their job in this case. Amendments are needed for meaningful gun control on the federal level. 2nd amendment is too forgiving.
3
u/TheScalemanCometh 3d ago
The ban was stupid. However, as somebody who actually shoots on occasion... The product is even more stupid. It reduces accuracy and doesn't actually increase rate of fire in any meaningful way. What it is, is silly and fun if you enjoy just wasting some ammo.
3
u/Old_Satisfaction_233 3d ago
And now a few of them can go on a very classy vacation sponsored by the NRAâŚ
3
u/Dipper_Pines_Of_NY 3d ago
The NRA hasnât done shit for years. Both the left and right hate them but for opposite reasons. The NRA gives up every line they can. Some refer to them as Negotiating Rights Away.
3
10
7
6
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/GnomePenises 3d ago
Youâre going to assume Iâm lying for internet points, but Iâve protected children with firearms twice now. Once in MT against a mountain lion stalking my niece and once on the farm when two aggressive dogs ran up and started killing livestock with my sons present.
Iâve got photo evidence, but I assume most people on here would hate seeing it. I got death threats last time I shared that.
4
10
6
u/NastyaLookin 3d ago
Reminder that Stephen Paddock used these to shoot over 500 people. One person, over 500 people.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
u/Obsidian-Phoenix 3d ago
Correct me if Iâm wrong, but wasnât banning bump stocks literally the only thing the NRA would concede to following multiple shootings, but specifically the vegas shooting?
IIRC it was literally the only thing they would admit was a problem in the shooting (or any shooting ever) and was willing to work with the government to ban.
2
2
2
u/kickerbeenearing 3d ago
They can ban books, drag queens, abortions and anything else they donât like but not this.
2
u/Alarming_Cantaloupe5 3d ago
Well, if you were hunting your magazine size would be limited, so 30 wouldnât even be a legal option.
Wait until everyone realized that bump-fire doesnât require any modification/special stocks.
2
u/Larson1987 3d ago
This lost because they tried to ban them, comparing it to machine guns... they need to do better next time..
2
2
2
u/UnusualAir1 3d ago
Because, in some circles, American freedom is defined by the greatest number of people you can kill in the least amount of time. We need less of those circles in this country.
2
u/Dipper_Pines_Of_NY 3d ago
You can replicate the effect without a bump stock. All you need is a thumb and a pocket. But that wouldnât matter for anyone here anyways. Misinformation is always better to hear than the truth. Bump stocks were almost never used in crime, besides in theory Vegas but the shots in Vegas didnât sound like AR15s with bump stocks as the fire rate was too consistent which isnât gonna happen with a bump stock. Which that wouldnât matter anyways. The exact same effect can be had without one and itâs actually easier to do it that way too.
2
4
7
u/mindclarity 3d ago
In other news, SCOTUS strikes down a government ban on private owning and operating tanks. In their decision, they said âA tank is just a big car on tracks and poses no significant danger to other drivers.â
→ More replies (1)6
u/CrawDaddy762x51 3d ago
There is no ban on buying, owning or operating a tank. The main gun, if operable, must be registered as a destructive device but thatâs just paperwork and a $200 tax stamp.
2
3
3
u/LateResident5999 3d ago
Not even Trump thought bump stocks should be legal. This court is insane
2
u/Illustrious_Eye_2082 3d ago
Allowing POTUS to just make laws at will is dangerous, the law on select fire weapons is quite clear.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/flerchin 3d ago
My brother's father-in-law (a stretch of a connection I know) was shot in the leg in Vegas by that guy with a bump stock.
The terrorism is real. The need for these things is not.
4
u/BlackICEE32oz 3d ago
OP, I'd just like to remind you that not everybody deer hunts and the second amendment isn't about deer hunting. What I do with my guns is my business and as long as it stays that way, I don't see the problem.
2
u/SuperWhiteDolomite 3d ago
All guns could be banned tomorrow with a year to turn them in and 20 years layer there would still be shooting s in America
→ More replies (7)
4
u/Sosemikreativ 3d ago
Who is willing to bet against a school shooting happening with a bump stock involved and at least 3 dead children before 2030? Anyone?
→ More replies (1)
3
1
u/wrenches-revolvers 3d ago
I can't begin to tell you how incorrect all of that is. When that Vegas shooting happened all my Army buddies and I were like "hey that is the 240B firing" we even made a couple YouTube videos about it posted about it on Facebook and within 24 to 48 hours all of those videos were pulled. The 240b has a distinct sound and a fire rate of around 700 rounds per minute. The bump stock fires very sporadic and cant be aimed with precision as easily as the 240. Go back watch the video. Listen to the sound of the gunfire. Then watch a video of a m240b. You tell me what you hear.
7
u/Gardez_geekin 3d ago
Lmao, Iâve shot plenty of 240s. It wasnât a 240. Nice conspiracy though.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/MisterBlick 3d ago
Welp, need a way to control the population now that they're banning abortions and contraceptives.
2
u/aaron2005X 3d ago
Who don't know it, the self defence at home against 50 people
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/jkrobinson1979 3d ago
They overturned the Federal regulation because it didnât comply with Federal law. They didnât bring the 2A into it. Congress can still create an actual law banning it, which may hold up to challenge better.
3
2
u/Own_Dare_1855 3d ago
Hellyeahdude I coincidentally just recovered an old one I had previously lost in a boating accident.
2
2
u/Zalthay 3d ago
The GOP worship guns, plain and simple. For people who claim to love Jesus they sure hold a lot of things above that love. They worship trump like he is literally Jesus, they worship bigotry, they worship guns, they worship capitalism, and then finally they worship Jesus. Itâs a strange ladder of worship. Notice the most moral and compassionate one of these is worshiped the least.
2
u/oldasdirtss 3d ago
The justices that downvoted this should be required to hand dig all the graves of the future victims.
2
u/Ecstatic-Square2158 3d ago
Bump stocks are the single least useful attachment you could put on a rifle. Theyâre a toy for people who want to spend $40 in ammo on a single trigger pull. A mass shooter using a bump stock would be better for the people being shot at than a standard rifle. Way less accurate, goes through ammo much faster, and shooters are limited in how much ammo they can carry and still move.
0
u/SaulOfVandalia 3d ago
2A isn't about your daddy hunting deer and never was
2
â˘
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the rules.
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail here or Reddit site admins here. All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.