Well the Supreme Court allow the Trump Bump Stock ban?

It's a lot harder to make a functional, reliable machine gun in your home workshop than it is a bump stock, which is trivially easy to make.

In a country with heavily repressive gun laws if you're a maniac you're not going to have much luck making a firearm. If you have the firearm, it's likely you could make a functional bump stop within a few hours, if that.



All it requires is a few pieces of metal bolted or welded together, or a 3D printer.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

All of this said, I think it's a very curious device in a country where you can quite easily own a fully automatic gun outright. An NFA license is only difficult in the context of the USA. Main issue is the cost of the remaining pre-86 full auto weapons, but you can do it if you want.

 

Sorry, my argument about banning certain weapons which do not offend Heller does not necessarily implicate the Tenth Amendment directly. To be more specific, the question of whether banning certain weapons violates the Tenth Amendment would depend on the specific details of the proposed ban and how it interacts with existing federal and state laws. It's more an issue of constitutional interpretation and the balance of powers between federal and state governments, rather than a clear-cut violation of the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, your claim that my argument violated the Tenth Amendment is not entirely accurate.

Additionally, you did not directly answer my question. Your mention of those protected by Heller is superfluous to my point, as my point went to 'those not offending Heller', as banning those you mentioned would, indeed, offend Heller thus my point would exclude those anyway.

 

I addressed your point about ease of bump stock manufacture, in another post, I'll look for it.

 

Your assertion drips with the venom of hyperbole and the shallowness of misunderstanding. To equate progressivism with fascism is not only historically inaccurate but intellectually bankrupt.
Progressivism, at its core, seeks to address societal inequities, promote social justice, and advance the welfare of all citizens. It is a movement grounded in the belief that collective action can lead to positive change and that government has a role in ensuring the well-being of its people. To brand it as "collectivist hatred of individual rights and freedom" is not just a mischaracterization but a deliberate distortion.

Moreover, your accusation that progressivism presumes the worst in mankind is nothing short of absurd. Progressives, far from being cynics, are optimists who believe in the potential of humanity to create a better world through cooperation and compassion. They advocate for policies that expand opportunities, protect civil liberties, and safeguard the most vulnerable members of society.

To label progressivism as "reactionary" is to betray a fundamental ignorance of the term. Progressivism, by definition, is forward-thinking and seeks to address the challenges of the present and future. It is a rejection of the status quo and a call for bold, transformative change.
And as for your claim that progressivism is "statist," it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government in a democratic society. Progressives do believe in the power of government to enact positive change, but not at the expense of individual rights and freedoms. The notion that progressivism is synonymous with authoritarianism is not just false but a dangerous smear.

In sum, your characterization of progressivism as "reactionary, statist, cynical, and hateful" is not only baseless but a disservice to honest discourse. It is an attempt to demonize a movement dedicated to the pursuit of justice and equality. Your comment resorts to cheap rhetoric and fearmongering, which is rich considering that you are going to vote for Trump, a man who lacks any shred of human decency, humility or caring, is morally anemic, breathtakingly dishonest, lethally incompetent, and stunningly ignorant of virtually anything related to governing, history, geography, human events or world affairs, a man who is a traitor to American values and is a malignancy in our nation and who represents a clear and present danger to our democracy and the rule of law and you have the gall to impugn progressivism, given that at it's juncture in history, the US Constitution could rightfully be ascertained as a progressive document, the document you pay lip service to.

Give me a f*cking break.

 

progressivism is an assault on personal freedom. Your constant complaints about Trump proves that your anti gun jihad is based on a desire to punish those of us who won't vote for Biden's policies nor his dementia. You can pretend "progressivism" is what spawned the constitution, just as one can claim it was a "liberal" document. Times change. Right now the left is authoritarian, anti freedom, and collectivist for the most part. the left has gone from wanting to comfort the affected to afflicting the conservatives. The government no longer is a shield for the poor but a sword for the self righteous and virtue signaling cultural Karens.

 

If Civilian police have a firearm, it is protected under Heller.

 

That's not entirely accurate. Those that would be considered dangerous and unusual would not be protected under Heller.

Am I wrong? If so provide the citation in the Heller ruling which contradicts the above.

 

The fact you're voting for Trump destroys whatever modicum of credibility you think you have.

You eschew progressiveism when the Constitution is a progressive document.You really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. You talk in generalities and weaselwords.

 

that's just plain idiotic. ANYONE who supports gun rights will not vote for Biden. Most will vote for Trump, some of the purists will vote libertarian or not vote at all. Your definition of "progressivism" is a biased joke and you completely misunderstand the constitution. Remind me of the law school that issued you a JD

 

If they are being used routinely by civilian police departments, they are neither

can you name such a weapon=my bet is you cannot

 

The bump stock is not a fully auto weapon. Not even comparable.

secondly the government has zero constitutional authority to regulate the peoples ownership of any firearm or arm in general.

 

The constitution is far from being progressive. The only way it can be changed from original intent of any said clause or amendment is by the amendment process. It can not be changed any other way.

 

You already know how I feel about Trump but you won’t catch me voting for Biden either. I think I’m sitting this one out. I hate them all. I can’t believe we have stooped to this level of leadership. Anyone who is arguing for either one of these clowns are being naive and submissive to nothing other than party politics. It’s absolutely disgusting.

 

well you can stay home and I am sure Biden hopes you do. He again wants to ban normal capacity magazines and semi auto firearms.

 

Never thought you would catch the difference between a book and a rifle, but if you understand the amendments this way: Where can I read about the right to carry books?

 

I will never look my kids in eye and tell them I voted for the the guy who made the first confiscation and destruction order in the US for firearms. You can carry that flag, I’ll stand off to the side waving two middle fingers in the air.

 

Wow. That one totally went over your head. It’s sad as hell to see Europeans (the creators of the right the bear) not know and love their history with firearms. Maybe we should let Russia walk all over them

 

that's a frivolous question

 

You're stuck in Wild West Myths, sadly. Maybe we don't love our history, because we know it? Look, Joe knows, each Swiss citizen get his/her gun when serving duty is over, to take it home. The only thing is that the ammunition has to be kept separately. Why are there no school shootings? Is your love for history greater than the love for your children?

And please never ever be that arrogant "we should let Russia...." The only friends of the USA still has is Europe.

 

Then I asked the right question. Well, even in the German constitution there isn't a paragraph that would explicitly allow to carry arms, there are 5 millions who are allowed.

 

A bump stock isn't a machine gun is pointless on a machine gun is for a semi automatic.

I don't see any point in banning it because you can still bump fire without one.

People will still do it.

 

Every gun that's ever been modified with a manufactured bump stock is in common use. You don't manufacture parts for obscure things.

Automatic weapons are no more dangerous than semi-automatic weapons.

Also you can bump fire many semi automatic weapons including very common ones.

 

There are no school shootings in Switzerland because the culture is different. And I'm not sure that there aren't any.

Saying that the ammunition has to be kept separate well you can just say to hell with you when load the firearm and go shoot people right like the law doesn't physically stop you.

Focusing on school shootings seems to be ignoring the killer whale you're locked in the closet with to worry about the ants.

 

No.there aren't any. Nope, nein, nada, non, rien

Swwitzerland is a direct democracy. Every swiss citizen has to give his vote to numerous laws the parliament wants. If he Stimmbürger (citizen voting) says no, then that's a no. So the Swiss citizen is informed and responsible. He (she) decided how to handle ammunition. It's not in the same house anymore, but five minutes after an invader crosses the borders four to five millions of Swiss citizens are armed to defend their country.

School shootings are only one aspect that opens one's eyes how extremly NRA-Lobbying rises death counts. But there are more. Suns who shoot their parent by chance, fathers killing their daughters by accident, police killed by armed killers while pulling over... you name it.

 

So, ban all devices that do it.