Federal Appeals Court Finds Bump Stocks Are the American Way

M

martin

Well-known member
One of these days the worm will turn and reason will be back. If B can do the same legally banned thing A can do either B should be banned the same or A should be freed the same. Next maybe machine guns will be allowed in every home. What a country.

The court reasoned that a semi automatic equipped with a bump stock does not fire "automatically" unless the finger remains pressed on the trigger. This is an example of a distinction without a difference. A machine gun also fires by pressing the trigger. What is the logic in saying a weapon becomes automatic if the shooter's finger is pressed one way but not if the finger is pressed a different way when both presses induce the same result?


https://reason.com/2023/01/09/the-5...s-legal-authority-when-it-banned-bump-stocks/
 
Punctuation is required between a dependent and an independent clause, Marty.

Since you do not know from which end of a gun that the round exits...

Poor Marty.
 
Since 'A' wasn't legally banned in the first place, your premise is faulty and wrong. don't bother with the appeal to authority fallacy either, since you ignorant fucks like to believe you know the Constitution better than that authority when it's a decision you disagree with.
 
I don't recall seeing any restrictions on "arms" in the Second Amendment.

The ones placed there were done so in violation of the Bill of Rights.

Anyone who prefers restrictions should do so by amending the Second.

Lots of luck with that.
 
Earl said:
Punctuation is required between a dependent and an independent clause, Marty.

Since you do not know from which end of a gun that the round exits...

Poor Marty.
Click to expand...

There is Earl as ever, my shadow, once again with the personal insult. Not that it much matters but the punctuation is correct.
 
Earl said:
I don't recall seeing any restrictions on "arms" in the Second Amendment.

The ones placed there were done so in violation of the Bill of Rights.

Anyone who prefers restrictions should do so by amending the Second.

Lots of luck with that.
Click to expand...

Nor do you see anything in the amendment granting an individual right to bear arms except in his or her relationship to a militia. That missing connection wasn't noticed in the law until the 21st Century.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Since 'A' wasn't legally banned in the first place, your premise is faulty and wrong. don't bother with the appeal to authority fallacy either, since you ignorant fucks like to believe you know the Constitution better than that authority when it's a decision you disagree with.
Click to expand...

You're evidently not smart enough to realize that in the same short sentence you rely on a personal rejection of a law in order to pose a logic based defense of a different law. I don't know, is logic within your category of "appeal to authority fallacy", logic being one kind of authority?
 
martin said:
You're evidently not smart enough to realize that in the same short sentence you rely on a personal rejection of a law in order to pose a logic based defense of a different law. I don't know, is logic within your category of "appeal to authority fallacy", logic being one kind of authority?
Click to expand...

the only part of your 'logic' in this thread is where you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment doesn't 'grant' a right...........because the framers believed that right pre exists the Constitution, therefore the 'shall not be infringed' part denies ANY power or authority to the federal government over the arms of the people. NOTHING the framers wrote or spoke about, nor does the Amendment itself, require an individual to have some sort of relationship to a militia..........also, your opinion about that 'missing connection' was recognized over 100 years ago in several federal and state court cases

you do know what the 'appeal to authority' fallacy is about, don't you?

The part about the Constitution/BoR most of you don't seem to want to understand is that the Constitution wasn't written by the government, nor was the government given any constitutional authority to define it's own limits...........rather, the Constitution exists to limit the power of the government so that the people can exercise their rights.
 
martin said:
There is Earl as ever, my shadow, once again with the personal insult. Not that it much matters but the punctuation is correct.
Click to expand...

Someone has to correct you, Marty.

You posted no punctuation between the two clauses, Marty.

Poor Marty.
 
martin said:
Nor do you see anything in the amendment granting an individual right to bear arms except in his or her relationship to a militia. That missing connection wasn't noticed in the law until the 21st Century.
Click to expand...

D.C. had to be taken to the Supreme Court by Heller to convince you ignorant people that the Second has no restriction about who has the right to bear arms.

You remain “Poor Marty.”
 
Earl said:
Someone has to correct you, Marty.

You posted no punctuation between the two clauses, Marty.

Poor Marty.
Click to expand...

You got it wrong both times, shadow Earl. Wondered if you would. In the sentence you think you caught the clauses are not separated by a coordinating conjunction, so a comma is not called for. In the sentence you just quoted the clauses are separated by "but", which is one, so there should have been a comma. No one has to waste his time correcting you, shadow Earl. There it is just the same.
 
martin said:
You got it wrong both times, shadow Earl. Wondered if you would. In the sentence you think you caught the clauses are not separated by a coordinating conjunction, so a comma is not called for. In the sentence you just quoted the clauses are separated by "but", which is one, so there should have been a comma. No one has to waste his time correcting you, shadow Earl. There it is just the same.
Click to expand...

Wrong, Marty. I have quoted no sentence.

I will now, though...”If B can do the same legally banned thing A can do either B should be banned the same or A should be freed the same.”

Poor Marty.

If the dependent clause is first (again, rather like an introduction to the main clause), it is followed by a comma (like in this sentence and the next). If the independent clause comes first, no punctuation separates the two.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the only part of your 'logic' in this thread is where you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment doesn't 'grant' a right...........because the framers believed that right pre exists the Constitution, therefore the 'shall not be infringed' part denies ANY power or authority to the federal government over the arms of the people. NOTHING the framers wrote or spoke about, nor does the Amendment itself, require an individual to have some sort of relationship to a militia..........also, your opinion about that 'missing connection' was recognized over 100 years ago in several federal and state court cases

you do know what the 'appeal to authority' fallacy is about, don't you?

The part about the Constitution/BoR most of you don't seem to want to understand is that the Constitution wasn't written by the government, nor was the government given any constitutional authority to define it's own limits...........rather, the Constitution exists to limit the power of the government so that the people can exercise their rights.
Click to expand...

"the only part of your 'logic' in this thread is where you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment doesn't 'grant' a right..", which is an observation, not logic.

Everything else in that word jumble is similarly in the category of "blowing words out your ass".
 
martin said:
One of these days the worm will turn and reason will be back. If B can do the same legally banned thing A can do either B should be banned the same or A should be freed the same. Next maybe machine guns will be allowed in every home. What a country.

The court reasoned that a semi automatic equipped with a bump stock does not fire "automatically" unless the finger remains pressed on the trigger. This is an example of a distinction without a difference. A machine gun also fires by pressing the trigger. What is the logic in saying a weapon becomes automatic if the shooter's finger is pressed one way but not if the finger is pressed a different way when both presses induce the same result?


https://reason.com/2023/01/09/the-5...s-legal-authority-when-it-banned-bump-stocks/
Click to expand...

Does that mean I no longer have to create the same action as a bump stock by using the belt loop of my jeans? Praise the Lord.

 
Last edited:
Earl said:
Wrong, Marty. I have quoted no sentence.

I will now, though...”If B can do the same legally banned thing A can do either B should be banned the same or A should be freed the same.”

Poor Marty.

If the dependent clause is first (again, rather like an introduction to the main clause), it is followed by a comma (like in this sentence and the next). If the independent clause comes first, no punctuation separates the two.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you quoted it, did I? I knew which one you meant when I referred to it. Look up "coordinating conjunction", Earl shadow.
 
martin said:
"the only part of your 'logic' in this thread is where you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment doesn't 'grant' a right..", which is an observation, not logic.

Everything else in that word jumble is similarly in the category of "blowing words out your ass".
Click to expand...

You have another boo boo, Marty.

Do periods go inside or outside quotation marks?
The MLA Handbook notes, “By convention, commas and periods that directly follow quotations go inside the closing quotation marks” (267). Thus, in the following sentence, the comma is placed after taught: “You've got to be carefully taught,” wrote Oscar Hammerstein II.
 
Last edited:
martin said:
I didn't say you quoted it, did I? I knew which one you meant when I referred to it. Look up "coordinating conjunction", Earl shadow.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, you did say:

“In the sentence you just quoted the clauses are separated by "but", which is one, so there should have been a comma.” This is your post no. 12, Marty

Poor Marty.
 
Now, Marty, has been caught in two (2) grammatical boo boos and one (1) lie.

Nice work, Marty.

We all should strive for the most pristine grammar that we can muster.

Wee lads read these forums and they should not be exposed to the non-pristine grammar that Poor Walter posts.
 
Last edited:
Where did Marty go?

Perhaps to buy an eighth grade English grammar book.

I believe Marty said that he proof-reads books.

One wonders who proof-reads Walter.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top