Correct. They love the unborn, its the people who are alive & living that they hate.

Good grief. What a leap! How are the two related?

There is a difference between religious conservatives and constitutional conservatives.

​@@BrokefootchuckIf you don't see the obvious parallels between the two... then you're a lost cause. The sheer hypocrisy in protecting the unborn while fighting any gun reform meant to protect children and other innocents from mass shooters is honestly sickening.

👏👏👏👏👏👍👍👍

No. They are delaying the Trump immunity case till the very end of this current SC term and then they're going to give Trump immunity and scurry off into the distance while people freak out about it

Yes. They are making sure that "The Base'" has access to machine guns before making a call on Trump's immunity claims.

That would be recent. But I think the case started during T****, right after shooting from the top of that hotel in Las Vegas.

@@MyHalcyonDaysAreHere I think he was referring to this opinion, not the Trump executive order. As in they were formatting their little diagrams and conveniently running out the clock on the J6 immunity case/decision.

Probably trying to ensure the MAGA militias can inflict maximum damage when Trump refuses to accept election results.

Alito and Thomas are not going to get away with their junkets anymore. Too many people who will be watching their every move. It is about time, they have operated in the shadows way too long. Thomas has clearly broken Federal disclousure laws, and, should resign or be impeached.

Thomas has pretty much halted people traveling to the US this summer and the foreseeable future.

And how many new guns he brings on the next hunting trip.

Will Blue actually reform the court? Gee what does AIPAC think? Might as well ask them. They run USA

Term limits for Supreme Court judges there needs to be a turnover in the Supreme Court and let's not forget people like Grassley going on 91 years old how come they complain about Bidens age 81what about Grassley he is ten years older than Biden but no one says anything about his age and then we have the hangers on like Moscow Mitch 82 what about his age there should be an age limit ever one else has to retire at 65 why do these people get to stay on until they die. This is something that needs to be looked into mandatory retirement of congresspeople at age 65. Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander don't you think?

Did you even read the legislation they ruled on? They got it right on this one.. bump stocks do not fit the definition, no matter what the end result is. Blame congress for not updating legislation accordingly to make sure it bump stocks were captured..

When Andrew Mellon started Trickle Down Economics in 1920. The wealthy and corporations have been working ever since to take over our country, end our Democracy and gut our Constitution. The Federalist Society and Leonard Leo corrupted our Supreme Court.

@@paulslund1 Maybe congress needs to act which it rarely does but the SCOTUS did in effect rule as dictator/polititions as they often do now

2017. Look it up

@@paulslund1 I looked up the National Firearms Act of 1934 (thank you internet archive). The SCOTUS decision is pretty much a "Mommy never told me *not* to drink the perfume" sort of decision. The bump stock is clearly intended to skirt the spirit of the law while adhering to its letter, very tenuously. SCOTUS could have chosen not to hear the case at all. What urgent national interest made them take up the case in the first place? Why is allowing anyone who wants a de facto machine gun to have one so important to you?

It's almost like they know that ATF and DOJ don't get to enact legislation.....almost like that's congress's job?

Its almost as if laws are to be made by the legislative branch of government, and not the executive.

Its almost as if some people dont want to get into the matter and throw around conversation killers.

You are bang on, but the average American would never believe you as they are full of self interest or uneducated.

You still think they're giving any thought to OUR lives? 😂 Ah, those were the good old days....

Wouldn’t change a thing for me. A feel bad apples ain’t gonna ruin it for the rest of us

@@matthewmorel3758the "rest of us" are the ones being killed in these mass shootings... but yeah, you have a right to play Rambo and supersede our actual right to live safely. USA... the only country that can sit by and polish their rifles after elementary school kids, movie goers, concert attendees, church prayer groups, etc etc

Have you seen the affects of an abusive government on the human body?

@@matthewmorel3758 Why would you want a bump-stock?

@matthewmorel3758 well I would avoid public events such as concerts and games

Thoughtful? Not even trying to cover the fact its political and corrupt. We know the priority is $$$$$ and they say as much, right Clarence?

The NRA funds the Supreme Court like it does with Congress and the House. How sickening is that!

It seems like the right wing Supreme Court wants more Americans to die with this ruling. At the least, they are complicit.

It’ll be fine until these weapons are turned on them!

ATF doesn’t legislate regulations they’re an enforcement agency. You’re just dumb and admitting to everyone that you’re not informed or capable of thinking.

Right, the 2nd Amendment clearly points out the government isn't allowed to infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms but they keep doing it.

How is the first amendment corrupt? We have the right to bare arms and the stock on is legal.

But now they acting like politicians so your point is moot.

Yes, celebrate them upholding the bill of rights.

Only a blue wave will push us forward. Otherwise we will have another do nothing congress because of the corrupt and contrary rightwing majority in the house.

Vote Blue to Bring Back Common Sense

@@soldiersilk65 by common sense do you mean indoctrinated the same as you?

Great, YOU again.

You mean bribed,? Because that's what they are, 6/9.

And the other 1/3 abstains they need to speak up and write some papers on the gamesmanship of the 2/3 ed.

Is that the one who couldn’t even explain what a woman is?

no you are

BS

If you want to be pedantic, it was up to 90 rounds in 10 seconds-- Assuming a perfect scenario, that's still only 540 rounds in one minute. Reality was the shooter managed a little over 1000 rounds in a 10 minute period. Even an AR15 will have problems firing off that many rounds in such a short time without the gun overheating.

A little perspective the record for a revolver is 8 rounds a second and 12 rounds in under 3 with a reload.

​@@danieljlanoue8823< what a sick person, I assume it's a trumpist

The argument was shallow, a semi-auto with bump stock is a machine gun. Thomas attacked it technically, which Sotomayor said it's a duck, smells like, a duck.

@@MyHalcyonDaysAreHere I totally agree.

Which argument was shallow? The code that defines a machine gun is pretty straightforward and with that being the law a bump stock clearly doesn’t fit the criteria. That the whole point of making the code in the first place, so what’s classified as a machine gun isn’t just an arbitrary label.

@@MyHalcyonDaysAreHere IT STILL WAS NOT A DUCK.. Nor a machine gun.

@@jacobew2000 Exactly.. regardless of your views of SCOTUS at the moment, they got this one right. Congress dropped the ball by not modifying their machine-gun ban legislation when bump stocks came on the market (or were they already and they missed it? I don't know..)

Doesn't matter: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

@@AnglophobiaIsevil7 define Regulated,

Owning a gun for hunting purposes doesn't count as "militia"

​@@unknownvalor9755it meant well functioning when the 2nd Amendment was written, but the operative clause clearly states its "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms not the right of the militia, "the people" is all citizens. That sentence also presupposes the right's existence, it does not give the people the right, it bans government from infringing on that right. Its like y'all never read what the founding fathers said.

@@Sarcasmarkus ""the people" is all citizens"" also keep in mind minorities at the time were denied firearms.

I mean idk about the NRA, that organization is not really in line with most present 2A supporters. But me personally would like to see the question in which Hunter lied about removed and quite frankly the whole NFA repealed. But as it stands it’s law and he broke it faces the consequences that plenty of everyday citizens. Also it’s not that he didn’t have the right to bear arms it’s that he lied on the paper work for the background check. If he acquired the firearm through private transfer instead he wouldn’t have broken the law he was charged with.

They were watching the case very closely to see if it helped correct the infringements on the Constitution in anyway.

Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has said that they would be willing to represent Hunter Biden on his appeal, with that federal law being unconstitutional. Wonder if the antigunners are going to support it (rolls eyes).

Republican hypocrisy never fails.

Every gun owner I've ever met has used marijuana, and tried almost every drug in college, this is a joke.

Ok

Your sick of the supreme court restoring our rights?

@@Talnaus Doubt bump stocks are a right.

You the tax payers hahaha most of the left is on welfare and leach off of us the real tax payers .

SCOTUS protected the Constitution, and the overreach of the Executive branch. This also prevents Republican presidents from doing the same thing in the future. Rule of law.

Well put. That is the core issue.

Congress is the solution to the problem: The House and Senate must pass a ban, and it must then be signed by the President. SCOTUS correctly determined that the ATF illegally and unconstitutionally exceeded its authority. A machine gun fires more than one round for every pull of the trigger. A semi-automatic firearm only fires one round for each pull of the trigger - regardless of how long the trigger is held. A bump stock (or similar device) does not change the basic function of a firearm: One pull, one bullet. Congress must ban the devices, not the ATF.

@@JamalHeacock I totally agree but when are they going to do something about this court the rulings coming from this court are absolutely insane

My lord we have had guns for over 300 years. That how the republicans defeated the racist democrats and freed the slaves.

Oh dear God please tell me you don't vote. Of course those power hungry clowns make rules, do you people pay attention to anything?

Democrats think government agencies can make laws. However, they also believe that government "gives" us rights, so that tells you how intelligent they are.

Agencies can’t make law but they can set policies. The ban was an executive order by Trump do you even listen to this?

Yep, that's what this ruling was all about.

But they can interpret laws and that is precisely what they did here

This is very likely the case. This is preparation for another coup that would "trump" taking power, regardless of who wins in November. This is preparation for war. I asked a gun rights guy years ago (early 90s) why he was so much in support of the issue even though it didn't make sense constitutionally. He said "to protect us from the government."

Need to supersize the bump stocks.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

@@BrickWallNews-nf4qjyou’re a bot or bogus account, but I’m going to post a responsible response for others. I’m a gun owner, conceal carry, and see no reason to fire in fully automatic mode. It’s fun when used responsibly if you want to use it. There are too many individuals that should not have access to a butter knife much less a bump stock. Responsible gun laws are meant to protect legal and responsible gun owners and not criminals or someone being treated for mental health concerns. If we continue to ignore this fact, legal conceal carry gun owners will have a higher probability of having to defend themselves or others.

On infringements on the Constitution

The Executive branch can not rewrite law, nor can Congress violate the Constitution with unconstitutional laws. This was both. Even if Congress does eventually pass a ban, it will also be unconstitutional and be struck down... again.

This is what happens when an agency, such as the ATF implements a law and circumvents the legislative process. Their action was unconstitutional, even though the ban was reasonable and sane. You have to understand what’s going on. It seems evident you don’t know or understand the purpose of the Supreme Court. By the way, that unconstitutional ban came down during the Trump administration.

@@jacobew2000 Well no.. if they modify the legislation to include any object that converts a semi-auto to act like a machine gun (i.e. bum stocks) it can be upheald just like the machine-gun ban. Congress dropped the ball on this, not the court.

​@@jacobew2000 Actually, Congress can pass a Constitutional ban on bump stocks and other external devices, and a President can sign it into law. However, they still cannot outlaw individuals from using the belt loop method or similar techniques.

The bills will be ignored, and the lawsuits will be dismissed. The only Constitutional resolution is for the House and Senate to pass a bill, and for the POTUS to sign it into law.

That's a great idea If a parent can be held accountable when their child uses a gun then the Supreme Court should be held accountable for any deaths caused by these weapon additives put back on the street by them.

@@JamalHeacock Untill dump gets in office I am sure lol.

That means anyone protecting them self should go to jail? So dumb

@@BrickWallNews-nf4qj If you need to protect yourself with an automatic weapon with bump stocks, you are living in the wrong neighborhood or you are the problem.

To protect liberty and rule of law?

@@jacobew2000 You make it difficult for common sense gun owners. For nearly 40 years all I've needed was a bolt action rifle. Maybe you need to larp with some ammosexuals on the airsoft field.

@@jacobew2000 You make it difficult for common sense gun owners. For nearly 40 years all I've needed was a bolt action rifle. Maybe you need to larp with some ammosexuals on the airsoft field.

Bet they can!

Good investigative journalism can and should expose the truth.

Anyone can make a bump stock. Also legally we can make our own guns.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791 So they defended the law.

We can protest march or something if I had enough money I would form a protest myself

We seen that when the cops would not go into schools because the children became collateral damage. And on the other hand the cops have families and lives . And because of these guns all loose.

thanks for sharing

Ikr.

Not guilty as usual The beauty of American laws

To protect yourself! 😂 Americans are so weird.

So if I use an AR to protect myself it should be; wieldable, compact, stable, accurate, safe for me as its operator, and as lethal as possible to neutralize the threat(s) as quickly as possible? So; short barreled rifle laws should go, fore grips are no longer prohibited, red dot sights cannot be factored to make the weapon prohibited, 'barrel shrouds' are no longer prohibited, and magazine capacity is up to me as the user in order to maintain situational awareness while engaging threats to myself or others? Cool beans.

Shall not be infringed!!

​. Slippery slope! Sincerely, Well regulated militia.

@@andytalarowski9654 the right of "THE PEOLE" not the militia.

Decide drug use? lol bro you’re too dumb to hurt yourself over this, just chill don’t be so scared it’s a piece of plastic, 3d printing has gotten so much cheaper and easier, it’s the real deal DIAS you should lose sleep over

@@andytalarowski9654 Sincerely "mob who cant' shoot but drinks beer and watches Reddawn" is more like it lol. And its the states that have right to a miltia its called NATIONAL GAURD sigh... Your just a little shooting club that wishes they could enlisted but were too scared to lol

Without any power except the ability to make a mark on a ballot paper ... you can do nothing. Your country is being torn apart by reckless and greedy people who don't give a crap for you. Have fun!

VOTEֱֱֱֱֱֱֱֱֱֱֱֱ

HELP SOMEONE ELSE VOTE BY OFFERING A RIDE

VOLUNTEER TO HELP GET EVERYONE REGISTERED TO VOTE

They upheld the constitution. We have a Constitutional civil right to guns and even military arms. "To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788 "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

@@jacobew2000yea ok clown

You mean Sotomayor and Kareem of Wheat, right?

@@jacobew2000 what a uneducated clown

@@jacobew2000 bah, that's wildly overblown. Hyperbole after the fact. Propaganda, even.

Police have no duty to protect anyone {Castle rock v Gonzales 2006, Warren v DC 1986}

And pro life

@@steellio5526 They are pro-birth, and pro-forced-birth.

Never back the blue who doesn’t back you. The police protect the constitution above all, not penal codes and not unjust rulings not passed through legislation. Being pro police just means we don’t wish death on the white ones, you’re not anti police either you want federal police you dimwit

Yep. Law enforcement's job just got quite a bit deadlier and more difficult.

It is generally *legal* to own fully automatic weapons *if* you have tons of money, and obtain the permission of the government. This ruling is Constitutionally correct: The ATF has no Constitutional authority to change the definition of machine gun, full-auto, or semi-auto. Semi-automatic is clearly defined as one round fired for each pull of the trigger. A bump stock does not change that mechanical operation, it simply makes it happen faster. The House and Senate must pass the ban, and it must then be signed into law by the President. Period.

Scotus needs to go no more free trips

Guns is mans best friend. When the police shows up it is to late if you don't have one.

As a Canadian are you leaving your car keys outside so the car theives don't have to break into your homes like your government is telling y'all to? Also, don't you guys still have a lot of bears up there? Because if i were in bear country i wouldn't want to become bear food, self-defense isn't just for protecting against car jackers or abusive husbands, its also for bears.

@@Sarcasmarkus You make it difficult for common sense gun owners. For nearly 40 years all I've needed was a bolt action rifle. Maybe you need to larp with some ammosexuals on the airsoft field.

@@Sarcasmarkus You make it difficult for common sense gun owners. For nearly 40 years all I've needed was a bolt action rifle. Maybe you need to larp on the airsoft field.

@@FatherTedCrilly i already answered you,

I agree!

The law about what a machine gun is clearly covers devices like a bump stock that convert firearms into machine guns. "Machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions. The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter." - 27 CFR § 479.11 - Meaning of terms - "For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger ​ The frame or receiver of any such weapon ​ Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person." - 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)

@@jamesbarnes3832 '... by a single function of the trigger' is the issue. I am not sure you care for the rule of law, but I believe Justice Thomas et al are correct. Read the relevant legislation as passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States of America instead of opining according to desire.

​@@jamesbarnes3832Springs force the rifle forward to cause another single function of the trigger.

​@@stevebriggs9399 Akins Accelerator had a spring, and the spring facilitating the reset was found to be a legal problem, any current bump stock design is spring-less.

Watch out, People. Every time you go to the grocery store, the mall, a concert, movie, parade, event, or big box store may be your last day of your life.

You realize this case has nothing to with guns, or rights, or politics rights? It was an agency overstepping its authority. If this was some agencies abortion ban being overturned on the same grounds, would you be saying the same thing?

​@@norincokidwho is on the supreme court has everything to do with politics

@@tesladrew2608 Regardless of politics though, it should be clear to anyone who's taken Civics 101 that agencies don't create law. Congress does. That was the point of this ruling.

One look at lobbies will show you trump was the least lobbyist funded president to be elected since Kennedy. I can't tell if you're just a liar or if you are actually ignorant. Joe biden broke records using lobbyist, special interest, and super pacs funds as did Clinton. Trump on the other hand is breaking records for grass roots funding small dollar amounts from register voters. The single most genuinely funded presidental cannadate in over 50 years!

Veritas

They do, unless and until Congress and POTUS say otherwise.

@@JamalHeacock You make it difficult for common sense gun owners. For nearly 40 years all I've needed was a bolt action rifle. Maybe you need to larp with some ammosexuals on the airsoft field.

@@JamalHeacock ​ @SARCASMARKUS YOu make it difficult for common sense gun owners. For nearly 40 years all I've needed was a bolt action rifle. Maybe you need to larp with some ammosexuals on the airsoft field.

@@JamalHeacock That is not how it works pump fire shotguns are still ILLEGAL lol. In ww1 they had trench guns you could fire them as fast as you could pump the shotung those made illegal. You can not modify a pump action so you can hold the trigger and pump fire. This is not even pumping its a freaking machined part that turns what use to be one round into multiple this makes it a machine gun after equipped lol

@@JamalHeacock POTUS doesnt make laws.

What a sad, sad society you have to live in. Where I live none of that is needed, not even close.

They need consealed carry not bump stocks.

Spoken like a person who has no idea what actually happens in a classroom. A gun in a classroom, concealed or otherwise, is inherently dangerous. Children are curious, and things happen. When a student gets a hold on the gun, either accidentally or on purpose.....what then? We know what happened when a six year old in Virginia got a hold of his mother's gun from her purse.

Tell the teacher to carry a gun.

Can we just disband the ATF?

And suppressors

@@swimminginthoughtswe can do both

👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼

That would be unconstitutional if done through Congress. However, you do not have to join the National Rifle Association.

How is it an insane judgment?

By following the law and not legislating from the bench?

I am not sure you care for the rule of law, but I believe Justice Thomas et al are correct. Read the relevant legislation as passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States of America instead of opining according to desire.

For protecting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791 The Guns has always had stocks on them. This one is just longer.

Or, teach people to practice self-defense and not depend on people to protect them who are minutes away when seconds count. Or, make mental health more affordable and easier to access for everyone. Or, prioritize anyone of the other variables that lead to these tragedies without fetishizing undermining the constitution.

I’ve seen wounds from 5.56 and they are no where near as bad as 308, 30-06, or 12 gauge buckshot and those are all hunting caliber’s

Wait, intermediate caliber rifles are WMDs now? Do you know what this means? Bush was right about Iraq all along!

But they do interpret laws and that is what is what the ATF did here--overruled by the gun experts at SCOTUS

Can't you hear? Trump banned bump stocks with an executive order.

​@@kevinmagorien7927 A bump stock doesn't make a gun full auto. It does not fit the legal definition. Also, I can bump fire with out a bump stock. This whole rule was stupid, and deserved to be thrown out.

@@kevinmagorien7927no they don’t. Are you Jewish?

​@@kevinmagorien7927wrong again traitor

yea, just in time for November. OMG America is in deep, deep dire straits

So, you are saying that Trump should get rid of the ATF when he takes office?

However, if you read the text, it talks about banning devices or accessories that can modify a gun to turn it into an automatic rifle. The bumpstock does do that. So these judges literally ignored the second half of the law, because the first half talks about The weapon itself, the second half of the law, talks about accessories or modifications. Those judges ignored the second half of the law because it is inconvenient.

Blah blah obfuscate and blather. Everyone knows what you're getting up to.

Troll with a six month old account. Just another false narrative. Most countries had strict gun laws and thus have much safer countries.

They are all terrorist organizations and really should be banned.

The nra writes gun laws for the government, they don't protect the 2A

Thank you. The NRA doesn’t do much in the courts. FPC & GOA do all the work.

@@scott2228They are a special interest group that influences those who bring these cases to court.

​@@scott2228 the NRA buys people, including our elected representatives, and a few corrupt judges.

The maga "justices" are all CORRUPT! 😡

That's exactly the opposite of what happened. The Court was doing its job! LOL!!

With 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats. This cannot be called a Court of Justice under any terms. It's a political minefield and the Democrats should opt out of it and refuse to be any part of it. Judges shouldn't be appointed by political affiliation, but by their merits and an independent association of peers. Politics should have no place in it.

I’m a liberal crybaby who doesn’t understand the constitution 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

​@@telebubba5527 would you have a problem with it if there were 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans?

The bump stock does not make it a automatic weapon. It is a automatic weapon without it. The bump stock softens the kick.

@@BrickWallNews-nf4qj That is incorrect. It is a semi automatic weapon. It doesn't soften the kick it uses the momentum of the recoil to "jerk' another round almost as quick as a fully automatic. How could you know so little?

Well said!

BS

Have you read the constitution?

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 "To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

It is the right of the people to bear arms, the people, the community, the young nation that had not yet raised a full standing army. It is not just the person, an individual who wants to own anything that's out there, an individual who wants to keep an arsenal in his basement. The community matters, and always did.

Sure, let’s go with that. Naturally Thomas will be in full support of Congress writing a law explicitly banning bump stocks, right? Wrong, he’ll come up with some other excuse to throw out any law that gets in the way of his fanatical devotion to the NRA lobbies checkbook. They claimed in Dobbs that they merely wanted to return abortion decisions to the Representatives and the very first case of a law supporting abortion they bent over backwards, stood on their heads and twisted in knots trying to find some way to get around their previous claims and ban the law. I could respect them if they had consistent views on how to rule but they just go with whatever bs it takes to get the results they want.

If the left stops trying to walk on our rights then the law would not have to be changed.

False. Biden is supporting war and they use automatic weapons.

The executive action was to enforce a law that is on the books that does ban accessories that modifies the rate of fire of a weapon. Which is what the bump stock does do. Hence it is illegal according to that law.

Did you listen to the hearing Chuck?

​​@@lightkevlarfake news Show me that law.The bump stock does nothing to increase the rate of fire.

@@jeepninja1 If the bump doesn’t increase the rate of fire, what is it for?

ATF technically defined bump stocks under 26 U.S. Code Section 5845 (b) “The term “machine-gun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun.” Of which verbiage is clear in the "frame or receiver" section of that law. They didn't make the law. They just classified bump stocks under this section of the law. There are things in American called Agencies. Like the EPA and FDA. Who enact things like "Clean Air Act" or "Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." Because Congress cannot pass (or understand) each act or technical definition. Congress therefore relies on the experts in the various Agencies. ATF are the technical experts on firearms definitions. Please research before posting. Thank you.

Not sure he's doing well. Shame what they've done to him...

@@hateferlife Who is “they” the Sandy Hook victims?

@@UncleWally3 I can't understand if for you. Try to be principled, the Republic works better that way.

Sure, you can have your muskets.

@@backhandchopand cannons

​@@lavarball3070and whatever one militiaman can carry

Enjoy your muskets within your well regulated militia.

@@lavarball3070 and every other arms that the government can use against private citizens. Even nuclear weapons are owned by private corporations

So, go back to flintlocks and muzzle-loaders.

​@@robbannstrom So you agree that MSNBC should stop publishing videos online and only produce newspapers on a movable type printing press?

@@grifdenton5224 Why stop there? - get back to painting on rocks with mammoth fat and ochre, it's the only way...

I am not sure you care for the rule of law, but I believe Justice Thomas et al are correct. Read the relevant legislation as passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States of America instead of opining according to desire.

@@jonathandnicholson Actually I do care about the “Rule of law”. But laws are sometimes wrong. In this instance, in my opinion, the “Bump Stock law” was always a red herring, giving the appearance of doing something to curb gun violence after Las Vegas shooting but not doing anything meaningful. And my comment wasn’t about Bump Stocks directly but about who this new opinion benifits and whether those billionaires who have corrupted the oh so willing SC are getting their monies worth. I’m glad to hear you too are concerned about the Rule of Law, here’s hoping that that concern extends across all 27 Amendments of the Constitution not just the ones you desire!

@@stevenshelton9443 First all law is extant according to process not outcome. No law is wrong unless in relation something else (God's law, natural law, gut feeling, etc, but not abstractly wrong - for example, why is something wrong? Morality dictates the response). You can disagree with a law, but that disagreement is in relation to theology, epistemology, anthropology and much else besides. That you are disagreeing with the ruling on the basis of outcome shows you do not care about the rule of law. You can campaign for a law (part or whole) to be amended, enacted or repealed. However, that would mean coming into opposition with all sorts of legitimate critiques. The due process and rule of law involves this and is not some tick-box matter in a court. Justice Thomas found according to law. Read the definition of a machine gun and the reasoning (which involves some technical information about the guns). That you do not like the decision is not evidence that Thomas is corrupt. If Thomas suddenly changed his jurisprudence you may have a reasonable suspicion he is deciding on some non-legal factor. MSNBC hosts et al have no understanding of judicial philosophy. Nor am I sure MSNBC hosts even care for the law for whatever reason. I can hear the hosts opine on what they would like the law or ruling to be, but I rarely hear anything on the law. Law is not what I want the law to be only because I want the law to be that.

Wrong. By legal definition, a machine gun fires more than one round for every action of the trigger. A semi-automatic fires one round for every pull of the trigger. A bump stock does not change the semi-auto action into a full-auto one.

Right, they must have payed a lot of money to get those unconstitutional laws on the books.

Such as?

It's on MSNBC. What else would you expect?

​@@tommcfadden5232*crickets*

​@@tommcfadden5232There's a lie in the first 5 seconds. No law was "passed" to ban bump stocks. It was an arbitrary "rule" passed down from the ATF, a LAW ENFORCEMENT agency, not a law making one

@@tommcfadden5232 First giant one is that it somehow makes them into machine guns. They do not!

Bump stocks do not change the riffle it softens the kick. Take it off and it still shoots 100 rounds.

They are literally CLUELESS 😂😂😂😂

As Democrats we like to pretend that the second amendment is an outdated law written for muskets while ignoring that the puckle gun and other awesome weapons existed when it was written.

@@ryblack5032 lol yes and if it’s not clueless then it’s intentionally misleading. Some would even call that “misinformation”

​@@swimminginthoughtsPeople owned big cannons, that's the Modern day tank.

​@@DingDong-gn7hjwrong in the US you always could

26 U.S. Code Section 5845 “The term “machine-gun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun.” The ATF did not make up laws. They technically defined bump stocks under "fame or receiver" of 26 U.S. Code Section 5845. Please research before posting. Thank you.

​@@cecilelaforce3686 And bumpstocks do not meet that criteria.

@@cecilelaforce3686 Given this codes definition of machine gun it is pretty clear bump stocks don’t meet the criteria. I recommend learning how firearms work before posting.

But they can interpret existing laws that clearly define that machine guns are illegal and that the use of any device or mechanism to convert a firearm into a machine gun is also illegal. What the Supreme Court decided is that bump stocks don't convert firearms into machine guns - which, in fact, the do by legal definition.

@@jamesbarnes3832 By legal definition under 26 U.S.C 5845(b) they do not. Only one round is fired per function of the trigger.

Government overstepping their power and being put in their place. There, fixed it for you.

Their not there

And govt should never be concerned about saving the lives of its citizens ?

@@ernieletawsky9505 Thats not the role of the judiciary.

@@ernieletawsky9505 they absolutely should. That’s the reason they need to leave Russia alone and get us out of all these stupid wars. The best way they can ensure the safety of their citizens at home is to make sure were armed with the same weaponry the military is.

The Constitutions’ second amendment does not give you the right to have guns for your safety as an individual. It reads in part “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That means the right to arms is within the context of a “well regulated militia” ostensibly in times of war or insurrection. It’s says nothing about self protection. Most folks that wrong.

@@dbird1356 read it again. The rights of the "PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms NOT the right of the militia. Please stop spreading misinformation. The right to keep and bear arms was common law before we were a country. The founders seen it as an inalienable right of the citizens, thats why the 2nd Amendment presupposes the right already existed, it does not say "the government grants you your rights" it prohibits the government from infringing on that pre-existing right.

@@dbird1356 "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

@@dbird1356 The militia is the people. ALL PEOPLE. That is historically the definition of that word. That is why the 2nd Amendment is broken up into two parts. It makes no sense for the government to tell itself "do not infringe on the government". "Shall not be infringed" is a commandment TO GOVERNMENT, not to "THE PEOPLE" that are their masters in our Constitutional Republic. "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

well regulated militia wake up

Bs

@@user-lo7ue7mv4r "the right of the people" Show me anywhere in the document where those words mean anything besides "the citizenry". And women were allowed to bear arms, despite being prohibited from being in the militia. Even back then, it applied to non-militia citizens.

Yes. If not for his AR with a bump stock, Burr could never have murdered Hamilton.

@@user-lo7ue7mv4r "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788