tvc184

Non-violent, yes. Scenario 1: Man assaulted his neighbor and gave him a black eye. He got probation. A year later he assaulted neighbor again and this time busted his nose. He got a month in the county jail for another misdemeanor assault. Two years later, he busted the neighbor’s lip. He got the maximum sentence of a year in jail for another misdemeanor assault. Scenario 2: A 17 year old sneaks out his mama’s credit card and runs up $150 on the card. Mama is struggling and can’t pay restitution and the store filled charges for Credit Card Abuse. The 17 year old can never legally own or possess a firearm. The guy who terrorizes his neighborhood and on occasion beats up a neighbor, causing painful and visible injuries, has no such restrictions on ownership or possession of a firearm. With nothing else to go on, who is the threat to the neighborhood? Is it a 17-year-old kid living at home who basically stole his mother's money by way of a credit card or is the guy who terrorizes his neighborhood and occasionally assaults someone? The kid who used his mama’s credit card without permission is a felon and the guy who repeatedly assaults his neighbors is not.

Okay. That is a good argument. There is no law prohibiting the stocks and the Supreme Court was correct by the letter of the law and Constitution but citizens should refuse to buy them. If every person voluntarily turned theirs in and refused to buy any, I am okay with it. It won’t stop the willing from anything however.

Some drugs to keep him awake and a tiny receiver/ hearing aid where he will be fed the answers….. Ask anything and his handlers will give him the answer. It will be like a silent and invisible teleprompter.

With a legal suppressor attached. We can’t stop evil people, much less with those who have time to plan.

Not as fast but pretty darn quick but skip that as nearly meaningless. You continue to ignore the questions that you don’t like however. Deflection is admitting that you have no argument. Should people go to jail for something that isn’t a crime? Should the Supreme Court base its decisions on the Constitution and the law or emotions? Does anyone believe there is a right to slaughter kids? If Congress passes a law banning bump stocks, so be it. Remember that in this decision the Supreme Court didn’t overturn machine gun laws, they only correctly and unemotionally ruled that a bump stock doesn’t fit the definition as provided by Congress. It comes down to the fact that the Congress didn’t pass a law that covered bump stocks. I understand that you are displeased. You could have reduced your statements to, “I don’t like that law”. So much more simple.

Out of all of your comments, this might be the most ridiculous; “fight for the right to slaughter kids”. Please point out anyone who believes there is a “right to slaughter kids”… and you call other people nuts? You still don’t answer the questions and go back to emotions. Should people be arrested for something that isn’t a crime? Should the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution in favor of emotions? Would a ban on bump stocks have prevented any crime?

I finally got around to reading Sotomayor’s dissent. She makes a kind of logical argument. Sotomayor then negates her own stance however when describing it. It was shown that a person can fire in the same rapid fashion by hooking your thumb through your belt loop and firing from the hip without changing any right parts. Her response was that it wasn’t as accurate. So her definition of a machine gun is now is apparently not how fast you can fire but simply how accurate you are when doing so. The bottom line is that the definition of a machine gun by law passed by Congress is a firearm that can fire more than once with a “single function of the trigger”. Then she goes on to explain that the trigger resets with each shot and has to be functioned again…. making it a semiautomatic. She argues against herself and paints herself into a corner with the actual function of the rifle. I could go on to take down her argument but certainly there is no point in this forum. In the First Amendment guarantees on free speech, some disgusting things must be allowed to be said or demonstrated in the name of freedom because when the government steps in and decides whose speech is allowed, you no longer have free speech. Determining constitutionality on emotions (which was voted on by three justices in this case) is not a good thing as we might then lose any constitutional rights.

Is it acceptable? No, in most states it’s called Capital Murder. Would it make you feel better if it was a semiautomatic? Perhaps the most murders in a school shooting where 32 innocent people were killed with a tiny .22 caliber pistol and a 9mm? In 2017 when the Las Vegas shooting happened, the FBI reported 17,294 murders. An average seems to be about 16,000 murders annually from all causes. About 350 people are killed nationwide with rifles of all types, not just high capacity or automatic weapons (of which Vegas wasn’t). Personal weapons of hands or feet or held in the hand such as a knife or club, accounts for about 3,000 per year. So we are about 10 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death than we are with any type of rifle. About 14,000 are killed by drunk drivers each year. Is any of that acceptable? You could remove every rifle from this country and it wouldn’t change the murder rate. Do you believe that laws or the Constitution should be ignored if something is offensive to you, because that is what you are saying? Do you think that people should be put in jail for something that is not a crime, because that is what you are saying? And for your woke example of pro life, what does abortion have to do with it? Does your logic mean that people who are pro choice think it’s acceptable?

I can fire 5-6 rounds with a semi auto AR per second. That would empty a 30 round magazine in about 6 seconds. With an approximately (slow) 3 seconds to reload, that is about 180 rounds per minute…. with an over the counter semiautomatic rifle. According to Wikipedia the shooting last for 10 minutes. That is time to fire almost 2,000 in semiautomatic. Would a true bump stock ban have prevented Vegas? Would a lawful suppressor (with a $200 tax stamp) have done more selective damage before people started knowing what was happening? Remember that is a legal item. With a semiautomatic rifle the Miami nightclub shooter killed 49 victims as opposed to 60 in Vegas. I guess 49 is more acceptable than 60…..

Shall not be infringed was not even an issue in this case. The Supreme Court allowed and in fact didn’t even debate the ban on machine guns as being lawful. The Supreme Court only looked at the law passed by Congress, accepted it as law and looked to see if bump stocks fit the legal definition as passed by Congress and signed by the president. The easy answer was no, it did not and the ATF was making up their own definition which is unconstitutional. In another comment you stated that bump stocks serve “no valuable purpose”. I agree but do we throw out the Constitution? We don’t need neo nazis or klan members rhetoric either but are willing to pick and choose who gets free speech? I support the Supreme Court decision on an item that I don’t want even if you gave me one. I support it because it follows statutory law and the Constitution. Do you suggest that the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution for political or dislike purposes?

I read a few articles that said they found evidence. This article (and probably others that I missed) finally confirmed for me that they found her remains. That is likely terrible but at the same time great for the family. The article said they got an evidentiary search warrant. Aren’t all warrants for evidence? I have asked that before but it is sometimes an interesting point of law.

The 3 progressive justices again sided with feelings over the law. Sotomayor wrote a dissent which was signed off on by Kagan and Jackson. I might read that later. The ATF clearly overstepped their authority and wrote an opinion that violated the law but you never know how the justices will vote.

About 30 minutes ago the US Supreme Court overturned the ATF bump stock ban.

Clearly…. Yes, indoctrination internment camps soon to be constructed!! Perhaps Madcow has really lost it? 🤣🤣🤣 This has to be another scare tactic. Even the LLs can’t actually be that ignorant.

It looks like there are a few single and double seats left for sale online.

Justice Brown was not nominated for the Supreme Court. She was a California Supreme Court justice for about a decade and G. W. Bush tried to get her nomination confirmed to the DC Circuit Court. That court might be seen as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court since more Supreme Court justices have come from that circuit. Basically Bush was bringing her up to be nominated for the high court. The Democrats led by Biden held up her nomination for two years before the Republicans agreed to end filibusters for circuit court nominations. When Sandra Day O’Connor retired, Biden went on the attack and said that he would not allow Janice Brown as a Supreme Court justice by using the filibuster. He basically said that being a circuit court judge wasn’t the same as the Supreme Court since they don’t write case law. That in itself is nonsense and they absolutely write case law but to Biden, it wasn’t enough…. all while remembering that almost every Supreme Court justice was a federal circuit court justice and familiar with deciding constitutional issues and writing case law. So Justice Janice Brown was not nominated to the US Supreme Court because Biden held up her nomination to the DC Circuit and then went on record to stop her from being a Supreme Court justice. Here is a two minute news interview video showing Biden saying exactly that.

It’s actually 2, 3 or 4 cents a mile, not 30 cents. It’s still funny. You EV drivers have to pay your equivalent gasoline tax just as if you drove a gasoline powered vehicle. The current proposal is to have an electronic device placed on your car to track mileage. Surely that can’t be GPS because that would surely violate the Fourth Amendment. The state would literally know every location that your vehicle ever traveled. The other proposed option would be to take a photograph of your odometer and send that in. I can see a new cottage industry in odometer resetting devices or a quick disconnect where you can turn it on or off at will.

Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad? The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed. That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa. Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)? What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind?

He almost singlehandedly saved the filibuster in the Senate by siding with the Republicans in what would have been a stupid move.

Hopefully….

Maybe I am missing it but….. There is no debate that the policy is purely based on race or ethnicity. However…. If the non- minority (White) financial institutions charging fees and making probably millions of dollars collectively but the minority owned institutions are not, are the minority owned businesses being deprived (screwed) of an easy profit?? So while the minority (and White) customers might be saving $2-$3 a transaction at minority owned institutions, those minority owned businesses are losing possibly large amounts of money. Are am I missing something?

As soon as Raisi died, George Washington appeared and started beating him with a cane! Then Thomas Jefferson did the same Next it was James Madison, then James Monroe, then Patrick Henry….. Raisi yelled, “What’s going on here!?” He was told, you must have misunderstood. It was 72 Virginians….

No.

I have sat in the jury room on three trials. The rationale that juries can come up with after listening to testimony from the witness stand, is at times amazing. I don’t care how good of a case I could make in defense and how much the evidence was on my side, I would never want my fate in front of a jury.

The law on self defense in Texas says that the use of deadly force is justified if the person using the force reasonably believes that it is the force is necessary. Of course a jury will look at it and determine if the person had a “reasonable” fear. In my opinion, by law it is to be viewed from the perspective of the person using the force at that moment. That is why it says that “he” reasonably believes. Then under Texas law, a person isn’t required to prove self defense. The state is required to prove that it wasn’t and beyond a reasonable doubt. So there was no reasonable doubt of fear when your car is surrounded by a mob and a guy is walking toward you with an AK47?