When liberals get emotional, they lose all ability to reason. Happens routinely, and of course we are witnessing it here with Sam's illogical argument that flies in the face of legal precedent and the text. We need clear thinking, not liberal rage vibes, determining appropriate public policy.
Hahaha - see this is the perfect example of the bad faith mimicry - you have to listen to the text, and can you use the plain meaning or dictionary meaning? Or as @StupidMoniker himself literally just wrote "relies entirely upon the text" No , not this time - you need a gun fetishist male (preferably divorced or childless) to come along 90 years after the fact to explain the same tired internet comment nonsense about semi auto v full auto that nobody in 1934 wanted to hear about either. Anyway bump stocks do seemed to be aimed squarely at frustrated right wing males to literally murder as many people as possible so I'll concede a level of understanding. Too bad the deference only works one way.
SamFisher's blue and yellow avatar suggests he is totally in favor of giving $200 billion of our taxpayer dollars to Ukraine to buy fully automatic guns and other weapons to murder as many people as possible. But can Americans use their own money to purchase semi-auto guns to protect themselves? HELL NO! Liberal logic is simply indefensible.
Justice Thomas Reverses President Trump's Executive Overreach in Cargill v. Garland Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan disregard ATF’s “about face.” https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/1...mps-executive-overreach-in-cargill-v-garland/
That is the dictionary definition/plain meaning of fully automatic and semi-automatic, so yes it does rely upon the text. Perhaps the people regulating guns should know how they operate.
When your values align with your favorite SC justice “I’m for sale to the highest bidder Uncle Clarence Thomas,” hard to take you seriously.
^ except if one actually read the opinion - or even skimmed it, or read an article about it - one would realize that the dictionary war fetishism (as sad as that is) was not about "the dictionary definition/plain meaning of fully automatic and semi-automatic" It was actually about "single function of the trigger" The real story here though isn't the fig leaf the Supreme Court uses to enact policies it's constituents want - in this case to re- legalize weapons for committing mass murder. The real story is that's what their role is now. It's too bad Justice Thomas took time out from his busy schedule of bribe-cationing to write this - obviously it's not meant to be read, it's just red meat for the incels. So they can create more red meat - sick ****s
A single function of a trigger firing one round is the definition of semi-automatic. That's like saying no one is talking about the definition of an internal combustion engine, they are talking about a mechanism by which the ignition of fuel drives pistons that operate to turn a motor.
A line that appears nowhere in the opinion you are defending vehemently, with all your Hastings heart and soul, that you didn't read. Exhausting.
Why would it need to appear in the opinion? I never said I was quoting the opinion. I said that talking about a single function of the trigger firing only one round is relying on the definition of semi-automatic (which for some reason you thought it was not). I've only skimmed the opinion, focused more on the dissent. I also didn't go to Hastings, I went to Pepperdine.
