Texas gun store owner says Supreme Court should limit government 'power' in 'bump stock' ban case
Texas gun store owner says Supreme Court should limit government 'power' in 'bump stock' ban case
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.
"Fossil fuel exec says Supreme Court should limit government power on climate policy"
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?
Bump stocks just provide the feeling of shooting an automatic, which shouldn't be restricted imo.
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.
It's funny because an earlier bit of context that you have cut out from the 2nd discusses the needs of this militia to be well regulated.
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
- Setting apart non-restrictive relative clauses
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.