Unable to load image

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

@butthole missed some good posts.

r/scotus

r/law

r/law v2

r/conservativeterrorism

r/politics

All of whom are literally melting down and downvoting people pointing out what the case was really about.

r/centrist Is a mess of upmarseys

r/supremecourt's jannies are working hard as some of the antigunners are melting down. 700 comments in 5 hours.

98
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ultimately, congress can make a law to make this explicit. The court determined that bump stocks don't qualify as machine guns according to the law written by congress. If congress would like to, they can change the law today, but the ATF cannot. While some may not agree on issues like these, there is recourse. The big court decisions are ones where congress has no recourse.

With the GOP constantly obstructing and refusing to pass any meaningful legislation, then we don't really have much recourse unless there's a Dem supermajority.

Then the people should vote in a dem supermajority in order to get the law written. Oh, what's that? Not enough of the general public wants democrats to run congress? Oh well best just do an end-run around the entire legal process then.

Fricking strags.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Kind of a weird argument when dems have to win by like 12% to take a super majority lol, due specifically to Republicans basically rigging the congressional maps.

Or rurals literally creating new states to give themselves extra senators.

Either way I disagree with banning the stocks here, it's r-slurred. But let's not pretend rurals or conservatives have any interest in what the majority wants or thinks, when they've done absolutely everything possible to give themselves more political power than their numbers would suggest.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Me when a super majority requires more than 1% majority


Give me your money and I'll annoy people with it :space: https://i.rdrama.net/images/16965516366194396.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Or rurals literally creating new states to give themselves extra senators.

Wtf are you talking about pizza?


https://i.rdrama.net/images/17121718107069042.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No it's true. Wyoming isn't a real state, it was invented in a Republican conspiracy. If you try to drive there you'll just find yourself in Idaho.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Slop-induced botulism hallucinations.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This has nothing to do with a federal system lmao, it was intentional rigging.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Democracy is when the Democrats win, r-slur.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is why we need to have only the Correct Candidates on the ballot (decided by a Soros NGO of course)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

rurals literally creating new states to give themselves extra senators

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

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hes still mad about when they made nevada a state too early in the 19th century

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's a NEW Mexico?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Keep yourself safe you democrat citycel cute twink

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There was a recent gerrymandering case because some state had one black district, but based on the numbers it "should" have two. However, creating this district would pack the Democrats more, resulting in a more Republican congressional map.

🦶🔫

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>r-slurred wingcucked shitlib take

>huh which troll posted this

>its pizzashill

I am jacks complete lack of surprise

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah I tell people this all the time when they b-word about 2A. We have a process by which the constitution, including amendments, can be changed. We've done it before. They just don't like the fact that most people don't agree with their opinions on gun control and want to force it on everybody. Or, even better, some of them live in a bubble where all the people they know are opposed to 2A so they think the whole country is that way bc they're r-slurred.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm 2020, when the BLM riots were happening, there were a bunch of people trying to buy guns for the first time and we're surprised by how onerous the "common sense gun laws" they supported were.

:#marseygrilling2: Whaddaya mean I gotta wait three days? The BLM riot is tomorrow! You got any of em gun show loopholes? What's "may issue?" I applied for a permit three weeks ago! These laws are supposed to stop the bad guys from getting the guns, not me!

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

We asked Americans if they supported less crime. 100% said yes, which means we clearly have a mandate to ban guns and make stealing your TV not a crime.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

ban guns and make stealing your TV not a crime.

https://media.giphy.com/media/7ivEhfUInwnUO9QzRy/giphy.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Gun stores already have mandatory background checks.

The gun geeks want the background check system to be accessible for person-to-person sales.

So yeah, "enhancing" background checks is something with bipartisan support.

They probably don't have the same enhancements in mind though.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You sound like a Fricking gun grabber.

All background checks are unconstitutional and must be banned. It's always been a covert way for big government to keep a list of gun owners, which is unconstitutional and downright evil. “Gun control” is treason

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fact: If you buy a gun, you're clinically r-slurred.

They're just pipes. You can make them in your shed.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You can't have a receiver shipped directly to your house, but every other part is a-okay. Use this information responsibly.

https://3dgunbuilder.com/pistols/fgc-9/

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You can literally have unfinished receivers shipped to your house too.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-%E2%80%9C80%E2%80%9D-or-%E2%80%9Cunfinished%E2%80%9D-receivers-illegal

https://80lowers.com/are-80-percent-lowers-legal/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_made_firearm

The law only prevents felons and the mechanically inept from owning firearms (based)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is a great way to actually end up on a list

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I can 3D print them in my techno cave man cottage, thank you very much

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Based and Warsaw-Ghetto-Sten-Manufacturer-Pilled

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm okay with it as long as it's free. Back ground checks are $20, and that cuts into the sellers bottom line. I already have a felons and druggie fee

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>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! :soycry:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The levels of "common sense gun control" Redditors :marseysoypoint2: want aren't even popular with Democrat :marseyliberty2: party :marseyyippee: voters.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>gotta ban bump stocks cause of that one guy in vegas

>nooooooo dont prod into any details why he decided to do the shooting or how he was able to set it up :soysnoo4:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm still just confused how he got 50 guns up there and shot them all. And also why he did that. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just reload?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Where do you even go to look into it? I feel like it got memory holed so fast.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think part of the reason it got memory holed is because it so so hard to make it wingcucked one way or the other. The guy seemingly got the highest kill count for....no reason? It literally makes less sense than a drive by shooting.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Weirdly the only shooting that ever used bump stocks and also the largest outdoor gathering of white people (country music) in that area for months

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.