The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a challenge to a federal ban on gun "bump stocks" in a case that could affect thousands of gun-owning Americans.
I'm a big shooter and liberal gun nut. Not seeing the reason for bump stocks. Now that's a dangerous argument when talking about a right! I see a lot of libs saying we have to have "reasons" for our various sorts of guns.
But I don't get bump stocks. Don't feel like I'm missing anything from the ban. Thoughts?
We are on the same page. I get the lawsuit. You want to keep the government in check but I don’t own one, never would and don’t see a purpose for them.
I have heard the argument they are for disabled shooters and not to be ableist, but if you can’t safely operate a firearms. You shouldn’t be shooting one.
".... shall not be infringed." Not "...shall not be infringed except..." or "...shall not be infringed but.." or "...unless..." It's "...shall not be infringed." The end.
You missed the comma between the militia and bear arms statements. Below are common instances when a comma should be used. None of the uses of a comma make the 2nd phrase conditional on the 1st.
Separating items in a list of three or more
Connecting two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction
The courts don’t view the militia statement as a requirement. It sounds like you’ve never read a court case on topic topic or heard the debate over the comma.