DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Cargill vs Garland

Get ready for "Yeah but owning a gun is a right. Driving is not."

You seem to want to make this argument but that is incorrect. A machinegun IS defined how it functions. Reread the definition.

You've made it clear you don't think citizens should own machine guns, you made it clear you think a bump stock creates one. The logical conclusion would be you don't like how bump stocks are being defined.

I don't like the capability bump stocks impact the way a weapon performs. Things are being created, just like the one I posted to circumvent the laws about owning automatic weapons. They turn a legal semi automatic weapon into performing as an automatic. So no, I'm not a fan of that.

I think the language used trying to classify them as machine guns was an overreach. I thought using such terminology was ridiculous. But I'm also not an "anything goes" person such as yourself either.

So you've argued about this nonstop because you agree it was overreach?

Got it, thanks.

You may actually have a point if that were actually what our debate has been about but it hasn't been. Our debate has been centered around how many states, local governments and agencies use tactics that run counter to existing law in order to force them into the courts. While you seem outraged pretending this is some exception to what we see so often. But you do you.

Trying to make a point that doesn't exist mid conversation doesn't actually work.

No, you tried to deflect to those points and I corrected you repeatedly over it, but that not what the debate was about. Yet again you make things up in your delusional world and think they exist.

Then show me where I've "argued against it". Everything we've discussed, nowhere did I "argue against it". You're reaching to start a fight again. You only think you corrected me. There's that superiority complex shining through again.

I am superior in complex ways, yes.

I'll let you reread the entire thread to see where you've argued. I mean unless you need each and every post of yours pasted into one mega post to comprehend.

You are truly a legend in your own mind.

Says the dude that tried to tell me he is way smarter

You cannot make this sort of nonsense up.

Yet another one of your lies.


Obviously you can since you just did.

You can't own anything you say.

And you can't show where I did what you are accusing me of.

You still don't understand how all this works do you? You post things, it sticks around. People can go back and find it.

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/2008532/re-political-jokes#Post2008532

"I'm only smarter than some of you. You're included in that group. There are people much smarter than me on this board. Sometimes they do allow their political and personal alliances to get in the way of that however."

This is where you deflect instead of owning what you said and your denial.

Or you could actually show a modicum of integrity and apologize for lying.

Where did that quote say I was "way smarter than you"? It didn't. No matter how hard you try you still can't back up your lie.


Like I said, you can because you did.

You replied to me, asserting I was one of the people that you are smarter than.

I knew there would be deflection. You said, you tried to tell me you didn't. You even went so far as to call me a liar. Then doubled down. It was shown you said it. You can't hide from it.

There is no deflection. You claim I should stand behind what I said while you're refusing to stand behind what you yourself said. You claimed I said that I was "way smarter than you". That sir is a lie.

So now you claim that's not what you said? Your claim is now that even when being quoted you didn't say what you actually said? Dear Lord man. And you claim I'm the one who needs help?

You do realize people can read, correct?

You are playing word games.

Did you or did you not say you were smarter than me?

I did not say that I'm "way smarter than you". That isn't a word game. That was your direct claim as quoted. You can either be honest about that or not.

Purp needs to build you two a room of your own.

You would be banging the door down to get inside to see what was being said.

Sure I would, just like fighting for tickets to a Trump rally.

Then you should turn in your MAGA hat.

So you admit you said you were smarter than me?

Because the use of the word "way" fundamentally changes the entire sentence.

I answered your question as worded. Sorry you don't understand that.

Garland vs Cargill has been scheduled for conference on 9/26/2023.


Reply of petitioners Merrick B. Garland, et al. filed.

Guedes vs ATF was filed for cert as well. I missed this one.

It is similar to Catgill except the DC circuit found for the ATF. I have not read that decision's text.

I’m smarter than you are. Lol pffft.

Lol…remember when the trump admin suspended or refused to address petitions?

Bump stocks are not machine guns and the ATF exceeded their authority.

Hmm, I suppose that went the way I thought it would.

If making a weapon that functions as a fully automatic weapon legal is how you thought it would go you were correct. Common sense has gone to hell.

And yet it does not function as a fully automatic. Words still have meanings and you ignore those when it suits.

BTW the word "automatically" was specifically addressed by Thomas, and I will rely on his jurisprudence over yours any day of the week and twice on opinion day.

Denial doesn't change how a bump stock makes a weapon function.

It does not. And in fact, that is excatly the entire crux of the argument. Bump stocks do not make a semiautomatic function as a machine gun.


Bear in mind this is whether a bump stock creates a machinegun, not if it simulates one, kinda is sorta one, thinks like one. there is the legal definition of machine gun. This is covered in the opinion in depth and step by step. Outrage and feelings aren't changing the meaning of words (much to Sotomayer's dismay).

The ATF overrode congress and got smacked.

With a fully automatic weapon it requires you to pull the trigger one time, hold down on the trigger which will result in the weapon emptying every round in the magazine without having to pull the trigger again. A bump stock accomplishes the exact same thing.

I never mentioned a "machine gun". I said a bump stock makes a weapon function the same as a fully automatic weapon. And it does. Your argument rests solely on the fact that it wasn't built into the design of the gun. That doesn't change that the functionality of the weapon ends up being the same.

Covered in depth in the decision but no, it does not. The trigger resets between discharges. So a single round is fired for each trigger function. You must intervene somehow to have the second and subsequent rounds fire. That is not automatic.


Of course you didn't. Why would you actually look at the law and see what the words used are. Automatic weapons are not defined, machine guns are. Bump stocks do not create a machine gun. Automatic weapon is not a legal concept and is nugatory. Adding a bump stock does not change the behavior in a way that is restricted in the law. The ATF overrode congress and was pulled back. If congress wants to ban them they need to change the law, not rely on executive overreach so they can keepp their hands clean.

Congress needs to redefine what an automatic weapon or explicitly add language to prohibit the use of bump stocks so ATF does not have to interpret the law.

You do realize there are things designed to make pistols fully automatic too, right? I guess you consider those machine guns?

You can bump fire any semi auto rifle just by using a belt loop on your pants.