You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I know that the US loves its guns, but the ban on bump stocks (that allow rifles to fire like automatic weapons) was instigated by Trump (a Republican) & supported by the NRA, in the wake of the biggest mass shooting in US history.
It's just been overturned by the Supreme Court.
I don't really know what to say but this is surely madness even by American standards?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c033d532354o
Not enough thoughts and prayers to solve the issue, if Jesus came back and surfaced in America he’d be toting a fully automatic weapon and body armour
What’s mental is that this case was brought by a gun shop owner, so he can make a few more bucks a year.
They deserve everything they get. Nothing the rest of the world says will change their mind.
Adding a ska beat to anything makes it more palatable, but that's one step beyond
Adding a ska beat to anything makes it more palatable, but that’s one step beyond
👏🏻
I don’t really know what to say
There was a very interesting episode of 99PI about the Supreme Court and its mechanisms for fact checking. Spoiler alert - there is absolutely no meaningful mechanism for fact checking.
The MAGA elements of the court are quite keen on 'originalism' and harking back to the (supposed) intentions of the founding fathers and the framers of the constitution. As part of that they're seeking to overturn legislation that isn't part of the original constitution, as it was written, when it was written, on the basis that those rules are not part of 'the history and tradition' of the United States. So if theres no mention of Bump Stocks in the original constitution then it's not part of the history and tradition that they should be banned.
They recently over turned rules about Concealed Carry - referencing a submission that was made to them that stated there were no laws, nationally or locally prior to 1900 that prohibited it - Ipso facto having a concealed weapon is an American tradition.
Following that ruling a bunch of school mums went to their various local court houses all around the US and searched the records to see if in fact there might be instances of legislation prior to that date. They didn't just find one or two instances - they found examples everywhere they looked. There had been laws banning concealed weapons, all around the US, all throughout its history.
But someone had made a submission to the Supreme Court stating the complete oppositie - and the court had treated it as true as it presumably struck them as being the sort of thing that would be true, and nothing requires them to check if is true or not.
We are 165 days into 2024 and there have been 215 mass shootings.
They deserve everything they get.
Most Americans want stricter gun control, unfortunately the pro gun lobby are funded well enough to ensure the majority don't get a say. It is a corrupt political and judicial system that is failing them, and most Americans are victims of that system rather than responsible for its outcomes.
if Jesus came back and surfaced in America he’d be toting a fully automatic weapon and body armour
Given how unexpectedly middle eastern he would look to American folk, I expect the police would terminate him with extreme prejudice inside the first half hour.
but the ban on bump stocks (that allow rifles to fire like automatic weapons)
Isn’t the whole basis of the ruling that they don’t allow a rifle to fire like a machine gun- which are banned by law and as a result the ATF overstepped?
One of the right wing justices said that a ban would be legal if done by legislation rather than the regulation methodology used so there’s no reason bump stocks can’t be banned (ianal / Supreme Court justice)
Would he respawn again if he was to be shot dead? The dude has previous for this kind of thing, if the story books are to be believed...
Most Americans want stricter gun control, unfortunately the pro gun lobby are funded well enough to ensure the majority don’t get a say. It is a corrupt political and judicial system that is failing them, and most Americans are victims of that system rather than responsible for its outcomes.
Well, the supreme court got a special Trump makeover. And Trump didn't exactly wander off the street and get the big dog job whilst no one was looking - millions and millions of people put him there. Yes, I know he didn't win the popular vote and when you take into account those that didn't vote it's only really a proportion of the population but they are responsible. Trump would just be an orange coloured irrelevant TV celeb and the supreme court might just be a little saner if it wasn't for the good ol' 'mercan voter.
Fun fact - if you were to go to America (the one's that leave every now and then are a little bit more liberal) and you are talking to a middle aged or older man they are statistically likely to have voted Trump (rather than Biden or not voted). Blame them.
MSP
Full MemberMost Americans want stricter gun control
And even that's absolutely tied up in politics and madness. If someone says they're against gun control, and you say, OK, so do you want felons to be allowed guns, most will say no. If you say, are you in favour of background checks, most will say yes. And I'm sure now if you say "should Hunter Biden have been prosecuted for posession of a firearm despite his drug use" they will say yes, too.
People who're against gun control are mostly in favour of gun control, they're just also against it too at the same time.
Gun laws in US will not change until they introduce tight lobbying rules and election spend caps. Sort that first and then you’ll find politicians to support new gun laws.
Clive Myrie: ‘Mass shootings undermined my love for the US’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckddv99wy58o
“But it’s not about that. It’s about being able to take on the government and the weapon to do it… and I realised that on January 6 with the insurrection.”
“That is why they want their guns. It’s so terrifying. This idea about… frontier culture… it ain’t about that.”
But someone had made a submission to the Supreme Court stating the complete oppositie – and the court had treated it as true as it presumably struck them as being the sort of thing that would be true, and nothing requires them to check if is true or not.
that’s not usually how common law courts work. I don’t know about the Supreme Court on constitutional matters, but usually someone (the Justice dept?) is opposing the motion made and it’s their job to do the research and argue the case. It’s possible that the court didn’t agree with those bits of the argument but did find as someone else said ^^^^ that the way the rules were brought about were the problem rather than what they said. Of course there’s nothing to stop Americans changing the constitution - the clue is in the word “ammendment”.
i used to work with a republican gun nutter (but not trump fan) and he fully expected that in his lifetime that one day the government would go too far and “the people” would have to rise up as a militia just as the constitution had envisaged! The ability of the Supreme Court to legally stop the government from doing unconstitutional things (just as our courts can block our government policies when they are unlawful) is actually what stops that happening. You should almost be more worried if the Court stops allowing people to challenge the rules.
@somafunk If Jesus came to earth today, they’d crucify him straightaway upon a cross of MDF and they’d use No Need For Nails.
I think about 80% of Americans are keen on tighter gun control, and Biden isn’t happy about this Supreme Court decision
https://twitter.com/potus/status/1802049691581927536?s=46
he fully expected that in his lifetime that one day the government would go too far and “the people” would have to rise up as a militia just as the constitution had envisaged!
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
It's nothing to do with opposing the government, it's about helping the government protect the state. Rather like Switzerland relies on armed reservists.
Anyway I only came here to say I remember Baggy Trousers but not Bump stock ban overturn. But I see those jokes have been done.
Having fired AR's with one (cheers ATF boyos), I can't see why anyone who isn't a ****ing loon would want one.
I'd ban them on the grounds that those who want them are crackpot oddballs who want to give themselves chubbies by simulating automatic fire.
I can't see them ever getting their priorities right on this topic, way too much money wrapped up in it with the accompany political clout and leverage.
It’s nothing to do with opposing the government, it’s about helping the government protect the state. Rather like Switzerland relies on armed reservists
It's quite the opposite. The state is closer to the people, it's about protecting the state and its local laws and ordinances from interference from the federal government.
Remember that this is all derived from the distrust of Monarchs and their chosen politicians. States were the original 'of the people, from the people'.
Septics are bizarre.
that’s not usually how common law courts work. I don’t know about the Supreme Court on constitutional matters, but usually someone (the Justice dept?) is opposing the motion made and it’s their job to do the research and argue the case.
Its to do with 'Amicus Briefs'
" These are briefs that are typically written by people or organizations who don’t have any role to play in the case. They’re not lawyers for either side. They just have an opinion about how the judges should rule and why. So they write an amicus brief saying how they think the case should go. The idea is that they give perspective, research or context about an upcoming case. Unlike regular briefs, where the lawyers in the case write in, these are written by people outside the case. Any member of the public, or any organization, can submit these briefs."
The idea of the them is that the briefs give more context to the case than a narrow interpretation of the law. The down side is producers of these briefs - who could be concerned individuals, special interest groups or whatever - but could also be lobby groups, have been coached by lawyers on either side the case or any other kind of bad actor, foreign states, pranksters, who knows- aren't bound by any of the responsibilities or liabilities that a lawyer or a witness or a defendant or a complainant would have in a law court but the submissions they can non the less treated as if they were evidence by the justices- with no real checks on with the content of the submission or the people making them. The only real test of truth is whether the justice concerned likes the idea of them being true.
And there numberous recent instances of Justices citing 'facts' that seem to have just come out of thin air in their rulings. Sometimes in extremely crucial cases - in Shelby v. Holder - a ruling that has stripped away a chunk of voting rights in the US and opened the floodgates to voter suppression and the closure of 1000s of polling places, 1000s of people being removed from voter roles - Justice Roberts cited data in the ruling about rates of voter registration that were a total fictionl. But he doesnt need to say and no-one is able to know where or who the information he's citing came from.
It’s quite the opposite. The state is closer to the people, it’s about protecting the state and its local laws and ordinances from interference from the federal government.
I stand corrected. It's still however a case of the "militia" acting on behalf of (and presumably under the control of) the state, rather than a loose collective of gun toting rednecks.
As far as the Repugnikkants are concerned, Jesus is far too Woke to tolerate these days!
...might just be a little saner if it wasn’t for the good ol’ ‘mercan voter.
Fun fact – if you were to go to America (the one’s that leave every now and then are a little bit more liberal) and you are talking to a middle aged or older man they are statistically likely to have voted Trump (rather than Biden or not voted). Blame them.
We're hardly in a position to throw stones here. They scream Democracy and Constitution, we scream Democracy and Sovereignty, and it's the same demographic doing the loudest screaming in both cases. They get Trump and guns, We get Boris and brexit.
People who’re against gun control are mostly in favour of gun control, they’re just also against it too at the same time.
It is difficult to grasp from the outside looking in. You mention "gun control" and parts of the US hears "no more guns" (not helped by the likes of the NRA who encourage this sort of groupthink). You'd think that an approach of "you can have guns, just safely" should appeal to most Americans - I'd guess it probably does, even - but many genuinely see it as an affront to their human rights as a US citizen.
Having fired AR’s with one (cheers ATF boyos), I can’t see why anyone who isn’t a **** loon would want one.
I’d ban them on the grounds that those who want them are crackpot oddballs who want to give themselves chubbies by simulating automatic fire.
So an addition that makes the gun less accurate. Having them would probably reduce the number of people killed.
mid also encourage gangstas holding their handguns sideways, and farm boys firing their shotguns from the hip.
He would not survive the Sermon on the Mount - even in Wisconsin.
We hear about a mass shooting in the US every so often and think "wow, they have a lot of these over there" but my eyes have been opened by this:
The nation has experienced 215 mass shootings so far in 2024, according to the Gun Violence Archive (their methodology defines a mass shooting as when four or more people are shot or killed, not including the shooter).
An average of 9 per week so far this year 😲