Bumper stock bad, a good move for Trump?

Cope

we dont need bump stocks to kill demons. fuck off

How is an unban unconstitutional and a ban constitutional?

The automatic weapons ban should also have been deemed unconstitutional but wasn't. It will be interesting to see if this ban is unconstitutional or not considering it's not a ban on a weapon but an accessory that can effectively mimic a banned type of weapon.

Attached: 1528906471334.png (1200x823, 399K)

trump isnt going to win anyways
this coutnry will now become a banana republic communist shit hole now
trump has cucked so much no way even half his supporters vote for him again
and if they do i hope they like going to war with iran and dying for israel

kavanaugh supports the patriot act and you think he would do that?
he also covered up vince fosters murder for the clintons and worked for george w bush when he was in office
they both graduated yale meaning they are skull and bones
brett also said he went to a jesuit school

Imagine not using catalog

Imagine not keeping up with voter opinion.

Attached: Screenshot_71.png (685x56, 4K)

NOTHING TO SEE HERE MOVE ALONG.

scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kisor-v-wilkie/
>"Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation."
foac-pac.org/Scotus-Agrees-To-Hear-Case-That-May-Ultimately-Undermine-Atf/Legal-News-Item/1019
>"Auer deference specifically keeps the courts from calling down regulatory bodies overstepping their bounds unless they’re particularly egregious. You know, things like the ATF potentially declaring things like bump stocks as machine guns despite them not having anything to do with how many rounds can be fired with a single pull of the trigger."
thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/12/ttag-contributor/breaking-supreme-court-grants-cert-in-case-that-could-end-deference-to-regulatory-agencies-challenge-atf-regulatory-power/
>"For gun owners, we need only look at the behavior of the BATFE in its shifting interpretations of firearms laws and regulations, which the courts have largely let stand because of Auer and Chevron deference."
townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2018/12/11/scotus-plans-to-hear-a-regulatory-case-that-could-be-a-huge-win-for-gun-owners-n2537371
>"The real win, however, would be for gun owners. Specifically, if Congress decides to rule in Kisor's favor, it means the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) could be reigned in. Right now, there are legal gray areas as far as implementing laws go."

Attached: 1545106858654.jpg (564x407, 85K)

>democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch

I don't care

Imagine not being American

These are Americans' opinions...of-course the ones that need to turn them in will be pissed and united.
THE BAN IS FINE BORN IN THE USA

I know this is an attempt to shift gun owner support to some impossible third party candidate that can't win. Trump is the only chance we have against Warren or Biden. I can see through this weak attempt of yours because I am a high IQ Jew and you are a poorly trained Russian attempting to disrupt our elections because he didn't turn out to be your guy. He's our guy and won't seek you any more uranium. Get lost- we know your game.

*sell not seek

good move because they give him brownie points and realistically anyone who knows how to shoot a gun correctly knows that repetition is the best most accurate mode to achieve maximum damage. also you dont need a bump stock, just hold the gun loser and have your finger held in place while pulling the gun forward with your left hand, it will achieve the same thing without a bump stock. let the guns recoil do the work

kys retarded shill, trump is a communist
youtube.com/watch?v=yxgybgEKHHI

>I never cared about bump stocks anyway
>he'll unban them it's 4d chess

The state of trumpcucks

His gun ban is going to cost him millions of votes.

Back in my day, we didn't need a stock to bump fire.

Why would you pay money to put more lead down range if it wasn't select fire? Automatic fire isn't practical in most situations. On the topic of the use in the Vegas shooting, he was using multiple guns and could have easily used something more deadly.

I won't miss them but don't touch muh guns.

They are already using this as an excuse to ban all semi-autos and leave us with bolt guns and revolvers.

its not a gun ban you retard

You can recreate the mechanics of a bump stock with a piece of string, a rubber band, or your belt.

You are proving my point by lashing out after I exposed your real motives. Dumb goy

Of course it is.

I do not consent.
Any act to limit my means of self defence will be considered as a hostile act

trump is a Zionist Babylonian Talmudist
but please continue to troll

I always assumed a real gun enthusiast would think bumpstocks were gay

Like that's a bad thing. Im Whiter and more American than you Muhammid

I am a huge 2A supporter
>was asked by a Libtard why I think automatic weapons should be banned
>thunk about it for a day
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the people to fight back against the state's abuses. The beat-cop represents the State. The reasonable 2nd Amendment position is that we be armed as well as the State. If the state (beat-cop) was walking around with automatic weapons, then it would be reasonable for the citizenry to walk around with an automatic weapon. The state doesn't, thus we shouldn't.
>Brady Bill fucked that up
>Brady Bill says the citizens can't have magazines larger than 10, while cops can have more
>a disparity which is wrong
The bump-stock effectively turns a semi-automatic into an automatic. The beat-cop doesn't have bump-stock, ergo we don't. This is why there isn't a huge outcry about the ban.
>b-but cops do have automatic weapons
I am unsure about that. Maybe some special forces type cops, but that is NOT what the average representative of the State walks around with (the beat-cop).
>b-but the military has them and they represent the State
Nope. Our military does not represent the State and all members of our armed forces are patriotic citizens first. They would not fight the average Citizen because they owe their allegence to the citizens and not the state. They do not enforce state/federal laws... Only the police do. Maybe in other countries their military handles state law, but in the USA, they do not.
If a General orders an infantryman to do something that is unconstitutional, the infantryman can and would refuse to do it. Their oath is to the Constitution and to The People (citizens).

Attached: rz3g5urozqmz.jpg (756x888, 39K)

it Does matter you no facts double nigger. neck yourself commie faggot.

Attached: 1517179311966.jpg (1057x1195, 217K)

>I am a huge 2A supporter
>proceeds to shit on 2A

They are gay, that's not the point.

Doesn't mean shit. GOA should have taken a page from the liberal playbook, and shopped around for a judge to challenge it.

reading comprehension is not your stong suit, nor is your understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

Attached: WhiteRabbitF2.jpg (500x500, 77K)

jesus how many bump stock bait threads are these fags gonna make lel

how?
won't they use the same reasoning that they used for sawed-off shotguns?

The problem is that you're using government interpretations of the second amendment. To say the people should have what the police or maybe even what the military use isn't what the second amendment says. It is simple, you have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. It doesn't dictate any restrictions on meeting the ability that the state or federal government could out put, that is a false interpretation by the government restricting the people on one of their bill of rights.

If you think the bumpstock ban was about bumpstocks, you need to stop being a retarded fudd. Bear in mind this coincides with the ATF fucking around with redefining "machinegun" at the beginning of last year. Like everything else gun control related, of course it's a stepping stone; a way to set a legal precedent to set up much bigger takes later. This is why the GOA are taking up legal action against it.

>It's gonna go to Supreme Court and get BTFO.
Actually very likely. For decades, the SCOTUS has refused to hear 2nd Amendment challenges even when there has been an [originalist] argument for a restriction being unconstitutional. Four justices are required to bring a case before the SCOTUS, and this is unlikely to happen if they do not think they will get a majority ruling. That all changed with Kavanaugh, and right after Las Vegas, Clarence Thomas wrote a pretty scathing opinion on the matter of gun control legislation and its lack of constitutionality.

There is an argument, however, that if the bumpstock ban goes to the SCOTUS and is upheld, then there is a basis to say that legislation banning semiautomatic firearms is constitutional. I don't think that's going to happen, though; if it goes before the Supreme Court, it's more likely than not gonna get slapped down.

The upholding of the bumpstock ban would be a massive blow to the constitution as a whole. It would be the final herald that announces the arrival of throwing away any intent or spirit of the constitution in favor of interpreting it however anyone wants. IF the 2nd amendment falls, then you probably will see violence. I know that gets bandied about a lot, but gun people are very cognizant of it and understand that once your ability to legally defend yourself is taken, then physical securing of rights must happen.

>and right after Las Vegas
Bleh. I meant right after Parkland. It's actually a really good piece. For the curious:
courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/silvester-becerra.pdf

Fortunately, the originalist (conservative) justices have pretty much already signaled their intention to start dismantling gun control legislation across the country as cases come up to the SCOTUS. They just haven't had the numbers to do it until now.

>There is an argument, however, that if the bumpstock ban goes to the SCOTUS and is upheld, then there is a basis to say that legislation banning semiautomatic firearms is constitutional.
It is unconstitutional, it is just that the government is unopposed that they can do that and that yes it will be a stepping stone for that.

Im not trying to be a 4D chess guy here, pushing the ban did nothing to help trump with anyone that matters to him and only gave never trumpers ammo, but it's so sloppily written and the no compensation part of it so blatantly over the line that it should get easily slapped down. Maybe not a coincidence it was introduced after Kavanaugh's confirmation.

I try not to make hopeful, reaching arguments for decisions, but I do hope this is the case. Wouldn't surprise me if he specifically set this up to scuttle gun control legislation.

The problem is I see people who proclaim 4d chess about everything and I think they're lulling themselves into a bad state of complacency.... but I hope you're right.

A good move. No one needs a machine gun.

I can understand that, BUT how can you then justify the banning of large weaponry like bazookas, flame throwers, or even nukes?
I do think the context of the 2nd Amendment justifies my interpretation.
It was meant to ensure The People had the requisite means to fight a tyrannical or abusive state. Since the state does have the right to enforce laws, they too need to be armed. Having an equal and opposite force is justified.
>you might be taking it a little too literally but it should be understood in context
>all prior gubbermints had seized the weapons from the citizenry before implementing tyranny
The framers understood this, this the 2nd Amendment.
Taking it further creates problems with law and order, which is what the Constitution is about. We are ruled by the Rule of Law and not the Rule of Man, where the Man with the most power rules. The "most power" includes, but is not limited to, weaponry.

They aren't machine guns.

How utterly fucking retarded do you have to be to bring up nukes in a thread about small arms?

>Equal and opposite force to the state is justified
>state has nukes
>opposite side shouldn't have nukes

Your average person doesn't have the ability to build, house and field a nuke, you goofball. Bazookas and flamethrowers should 100% be allowed. You seems to ignore the fact that the military is also a part of the state that needs opposing balance.

Wow an American Nazi with AR-15, are niggers finally going to die or just more target practicing?

Who is to determine that?
Just repeal NFA or chip away at it.

No, my reaction is 3 fold.
First, it's not in State or Federal Jurisdiction to determine my mutually exchanged or purchased, or my created, property and especially when it comes to Arms.
Second, it creates a crime Post-Hoc, something the Constitution does not allow.
Third, it goes against his oath to protect the Constitution.
Fourth, it goes against his promises.
Fifth, it's not Stock.

Again, my post on your comprehension applies
Re-read it several times until you understand it:

I understand that you're too brain damaged to be wandering free around society.

Even if it isn't an intentional easy target, it's still true that there are now five justices who are pretty openly opposed to gun control.

even a stick

>mimics what a machine gun does
>it isnt one

>Who is to determine that?
law makers will eventually. gun ownership is on the decline. politicians aren't going to stand up for your right to own them when you become a minority. eventually we're going to take away your semi autos as well ;)

Attached: 1459845258238.gif (200x194, 37K)

You might consider reading my other post regarding the military vs the state

Its all good first step to banning semi automatic weapons and eventually we will eliminate the second ammendment

It is literally not a machine gun, nor does it mimic what a machine gun does.

Gun grabbers are so fucking retarded.

bad move. The thing is, bump stocks are gay and most people don't give a shit about them, but you NEVER, EVER, give up any guns rights. Once they get rid of one, they move on to the next. If the leftists are focused on bump stocks, they aren't going for the next one yet. You never give ground to these fucking people. They chip away until there is nothing left.

You sound like a gubbermint employee

anyone going to point out that op's pic doesn't have a bump stock? i mean its got a scope for christ's sake

Only Jow Forums and a few Jewtube celebrities are upset over it, honestly. No one else really cares.

We cannot help that our land has been perverted. While yes we should under the Rule of Law, the founders also understood we should only let those of good moral standing be capable of enter the USA rather than anyone. So many facets of our foundations have been compromised over time.

says the guy that probably gets upset over someone calling a magazine a clip.

What's it like knowing that your guns will be taken away from you within your lifetime?

Attached: 1489766938646.jpg (670x424, 145K)

Why not just buy fully-automatic ARs instead of the semi auto versions?

Is this a state-by-state thing? Kentucky has full-auto guns, why are they allowed to own them but everyone else needs bump stocks?

Attached: qt49.jpg (1170x1497, 1.44M)

Way to double down on the retardation.

this 100%

>So many facets of our foundations have been compromised over time.
Why I fucking hate ALL (((liberals)))

It's such stupid shit banning bump stocks. A fucking shoe lace has the same effect. Banning them proves the law caters more to people's feelings than anything objective.

I read all of your cogent arguments. Stunning display of brain-power
>you should write a book

I read it the first time you posted it and you were wrong then as well. You are wrong that the military wouldn't be used to stamp out a just revolution. It wouldn't have to be ALL the military, just some of it. Furthermore, you're wrong in the eyes of the founders as well, who were very clear about this.

>Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier is the birthright of americans

Attached: 1521176157766.jpg (1200x630, 170K)

m.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64

cope

>198857984
kek

Attached: 1502414997977.gif (320x320, 2.46M)

Our founders were against a standing army because it could be used as an arm of the State. We still do not have a standing army, although it must be re-authorized each year.
Have you ever been in the armed services? You do realize our soldiers are patriots and not puppets of the State.
I think you have succumbed to the common assumption that our military protects the state over the Constitution and The People. This might be due to how other countries us their armed forces, but it has never been the case here. Nor will it---even in another civil war between the Libtards and the Patriots.
>I do not think I am being naive
Even within the military, if a rogue group attacks our citizenry, the rest of the soldiers would consider that sedition and treasonous, and attack them for it. Our soldiers would take the citizen's side over a tyrannical/abusive state in a heartbeat. And if they were unsure about 'which side' they would stand down---not their place to enforce State law, and they know it.

Attached: 1520404932019.jpg (700x700, 42K)

>Our soldiers would take the citizen's side over a tyrannical/abusive state in a heartbeat.

This is true. Even if the higher ups threatened them over it, they would disobey their orders. They can't even stop grunts from beating hookers and getting dui's despite lecturing them and threatening them every single weekend.

t. former 11b

Fucking dipshit.
Why can't we ban those thermonuclear weapons the guy is holding in OP's pic.

Fucking stupid nigger

>We still do not have a standing army
You're retarded. I'm very well acquainted with members of the military. What we have is 100% defined as a standing army.

>You do realize our soldiers are patriots and not puppets of the State.
I know enough soldiers to know this statement is nothing but an indictment of your stance on this and is almost certainly bait.

>I think you have succumbed to the common assumption that our military protects the state over the Constitution and The People.
Standing militaries, which IS what we have, follow orders. That is what they are trained to do and a certain percentage of them will in the right circumstances. You still have no argument against what is clearly laid out as how this is all supposed to work; all for the sake of resolving a gun problem that doesn't exist.

>Even within the military, if a rogue group attacks our citizenry, the rest of the soldiers would consider that sedition and treasonous, and attack them for it.
This is a fanfic. You cannot claim this without knowing the specific situation.

could say the same to you. come visit Jow Forums sometime, learn how to build an AR.

Beating hookers and duis aren't the same thing as disobeying an unconstitutional order. Especially considering that your average grunt isn't going to know jack shit about the highest reasons for doing what they're doing. Compartmentalization is a thing for a reason and soldiers are taught to follow orders, not question superiors.

im content with my bolt action .22lr

Never happen. Your movement suicided in the '90s.

if you are support this you are 100% a gay nigger cuck. trump was in the perfect position to undo a few decades of bullshit regulations, but instead he did the opposite. there was literally zero reason for this to happen.

the school shootings are going to change that m8

The only people pissing themselves about school shootings are halfwit liberals. You have no political power. You chimps are so fucking incompetent, the last time you tried to ban assault weapons, you turned them into the most popular rifle in the country.

You are legitimately belong in mental institutions.

Speaking of which. What Assault Rifle is good to start with?

Trump is literally revitalizing our movement