Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

yagotme

(4,135 posts)
43. Well, I'll try again:
Sat Jun 15, 2024, 12:33 AM
Jun 2024
It's prohibited to the vast majority of citizens.

You said yourself, 37 states allow it. IL, my state, doesn't allow direct civilian ownership, but if you get a dealer license for Class III weapons (machine guns, etc.), you CAN own one in IL. So, 37 isn't a solid number, it's actually a bit higher, if you count the Class III dealers.

without further intervention of your finger,

Your finger intervenes. It has to. Otherwise, it won't work. You have to have forward pressure on the forearm also, to make it work. Bump stocks are a 2-handed operation, to get the rifle to recoil and reset properly.

emerge with a weapon that can be made functionally fully automatic

Bump stocks DO NOT make a weapon functionally fully automatic. That's why we have the judgement we have today.

if it delivers rounds like a duck, and requires the same effort to shoot as a duck, then it might very well be a duck

Well, 2 things wrong here, so it must not be a duck. Full auto is faster than bump fire. Full auto, you merely have to hold the trigger back, and the weapon does ALL the work. Bump stock, you have to hold it a certain way, allow the recoil to work a certain way, and apply a certain, specified amount of forward pressure to the forearm. If you tweak any of these things too far out of spec, then it doesn't work. Bump stocks take some practice, full auto doesn't.

maybe you should wonder why the lower courts got it so wrong

Sometimes courts get things wrong, sometimes right, and when 2 lower courts disagree, it's up to the USSC to make a final judgement. That's how our system works, like it or not.

What list? What are you even talking about? Technically you can own one? Come on

List of states that allow ownership of MG's. See above for my IL explanation.

"Two of your count, four of mine." Can you give me that in English?

Sure. You counted 2 "errors" in my post, and stated why should you believe anything I have to say, and I counted 4 in yours, with the same response you gave me.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

So how much of a kickback did he get for this ruling? nt mitch96 Jun 2024 #1
yes. Think. Again. Jun 2024 #6
Thomas will gladly sacrifice American lives for a nice vacation. Irish_Dem Jun 2024 #28
Dumbfounded. Karma13612 Jun 2024 #2
The Idi Amin of the Supreme Court understands nothing, except this: peppertree Jun 2024 #13
Thanks edhopper Jun 2024 #3
Founding fathers did not want Americans killed with military weapons. Irish_Dem Jun 2024 #30
Sadly, gunners are orgasmic over the opinion. Kingofalldems Jun 2024 #4
Post removed Post removed Jun 2024 #5
What is your goal here? Do you think your arguments will persuade people this is okay? Nevilledog Jun 2024 #8
My goal here is to point out incorrect information. yagotme Jun 2024 #9
I can form my decisions based on the fact bump stocks should be illegal. Nevilledog Jun 2024 #15
The details are what makes laws good or bad. yagotme Jun 2024 #18
The court's role does not include what "should be" legal or illegal FBaggins Jun 2024 #21
This guy has it wrong? dpibel Jun 2024 #12
Fact checks: yagotme Jun 2024 #17
Some of what you say is incoherent dpibel Jun 2024 #41
Well, I'll try again: yagotme Jun 2024 #43
"If an AR-15 with a bump stock is a machine gun" FBaggins Jun 2024 #22
Just functions like one dpibel Jun 2024 #42
Well... no FBaggins Jun 2024 #46
We're the envy of the world. Uh huh. Marcus IM Jun 2024 #7
Opinion dedicated to Las Vegas shooter? moondust Jun 2024 #10
Someone ask Thomas pwb Jun 2024 #11
I don't even know what a rapid loading magazine is TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #37
You figured it out. pwb Jun 2024 #44
As long as Harlan is happy Blue Idaho Jun 2024 #14
Why? DET Jun 2024 #16
INFURIATING dickthegrouch Jun 2024 #19
Are we now advocating the Bible sarisataka Jun 2024 #25
Post removed Post removed Jun 2024 #20
Would like to Rebl2 Jun 2024 #23
***sigh*** melm00se Jun 2024 #24
As is apparent from this thread, the decision is defensible 0rganism Jun 2024 #26
Great post TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #38
The US Supreme Court has blood on its hands. Irish_Dem Jun 2024 #27
Once again, legalese becomes employed to B.See Jun 2024 #29
And yet, DU has at least one very busy gun aficionado defending Clarence today... Hekate Jun 2024 #31
Shouldn't DU defend the rule of law? TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #39
Weak n/t kcr Jun 2024 #45
The SAD part is, one day soon this SC will see the BLOODY MASSACRE bluestarone Jun 2024 #32
Rejoicing on the wrong side! IzzaNuDay Jun 2024 #33
He'll have rafts of sea-lions defending his decision Torchlight Jun 2024 #34
Yeah jimfields33 Jun 2024 #36
Where in the Constitution does an Orginalist see reference to gun ACCESSORIES? PeaceWave Jun 2024 #35
You clearly didn't read the opinion TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #40
Couldn't be that the NRA has paid for a pricey vacation. yellowcanine Jun 2024 #47
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Clarence Thomas' Opinion ...»Reply #43