Meltdowns Over The Supreme Court telling the ATF that bumpstocks can't be banned using their argument.

Don't worry they'll cite some poll of "well 70% of people support enhancing background checks" as they advocate for daily colonoscopies for gunowners.

>everyone in my san francisco suburb wants a total ban on gun ownership, I can't understand how these pro-gun politicians keep getting elected!

I've seen these people buy guns during the floyd riots and then move further away from nonwhites whem they could work remote.

Bump stock bans weren't ruled unconstitutional. It was just a tedious bureaucracy issue

U can't just change the law there's a process the constitution u need to table an amendment first

Yes its horrible how a federal system works, very evil!

Oh no, the state government (democracy) selected a congressional district mapping committee (democracy) to map the voting blocks (democracy) into areas that didn't let my minority opinion supersede the majority of people (democracy), and then those section of people voted against their (my) best interests (democracy)

Real shame isn't it

rurals literally creating new states to give themselves extra senators

Isn't it liberals that want to make Puerto Rico and DC states?

Keep yourself safe you democrat citycel cute twink

Why did Democrats hold a majority in the House of Representatives from 1946-1994 despite Republicans winning the White House more often? A toxic combination of gerrymandering and using federal resources to protect incumbents resulted in this imbalance. That's the definition of “ doing absolutely everything possible to give themselves more political power than their numbers would suggest”

Politicians like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi benefited tremendously from being in the majority and got to accrue power. Even now, Democrats have explicitly gerrymandered in states like California and Maryland for 40+ years.

The desire for minority representation in Congress has also helped white rurals and suburbans control more seats. It's a fantastic example of what happens when the government intervenes in a free market and gets unexpected consequences

>r-slurred wingcucked shitlib take

>huh which troll posted this

>its pizzashill

I am jacks complete lack of surprise

Me when a super majority requires more than 1% majority

You have a lot of average reddit strag areguments, but being anti-2a is the straggiest.

Think of it this way, it'd be a lot harder for you to carry out your promise you made to everyone to off yourself if you can't get a gun.

Urbanoids are subhuman and should only count as 2/5th human when counting votes

Yeah that one still throws me. The more you look into the details (and lack thereof), the more it glows.

Even KBJ seems more intelligent than Sotomayor.

!slotsmb1000

Breyer didn't use emotion. He'd just create 8 factor balancing tests with none of them being dispositive and then weight the factors so that in the case at hand the test would come out with his preferred outcome.

Sotomayor and Alito are the same partesian-level hacks. Altio's basically the Wish.com version of Scalia and he knows it.

Anyway Tier list

S: Gorsuch

A: Roberts, Kavanaugh

B: Barrett, Thomas, Kagan

C: Jackson, Alito

F: Sotomayor

if it dresses like a woman

how autisitic do you have to be to ask for someones birth chromosomes?

Looks like a girl, talks like a girl. It girl to me bro

I'm a big proponent of the "functional" definition of a woman. If it makes my peepee hard, it's a woman.

he do seem kinda mad for not caring fr fr

SCOTUS isn't based on the gun question until they gut the restrictions on SBRs and suppressors

You get around sawn off shotguns being banned by simply not calling them shotguns.

Reminder shotguns are all destructive devices that are only allowed to exist due to a "sporting use" exception which can arbitrarily be withdrawn (e.g. Streetsweeper). Also reminder the NFA's entire point was to ban pistols.

Also they only reason they came to that conclusion was because the District Court judge knew that Miller couldn't afford a lawyer for the Supreme Court, let alone get to Washington, so he ruled in such a way that would move the case there. Because SCOTUS only rules on what is presented before them, you get the arguing that the law is constitutional and no one for the defense arguing that the law is unconstitutional, so SCOTUS rules in Miller's favor.