Yik Yak icon
Join communities on Yik Yak Download
But if I say this about machine guns…
17 upvotes, 13 comments. Yik Yak image post by Anonymous in US Politics. "But if I say this about machine guns…"
upvote 17 downvote

default user profile icon
Anonymous 1w

The Supreme Court’s debate today: “wait whose idea was it to hear a case that was decided over 100 years ago?”

upvote 14 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 1w

Machine guns existed and were known of by the founders at the time of the founding

upvote 1 downvote
🐸
Anonymous 1w

The difference is that immigrants are beneficial and machine guns aren’t, not super complicated lmao

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 1w

So did artillery so I'm not really sure what you're getting at

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 1w

Should we allow both since there is a legitimate argument that they had intent of that? Or should we interpret the law in its plain text, and set aside whatever intents were involved that did not make it into the text? The courts have gone back and forth on this since the founding, but the intent argument tends to be popular because it allows more judicial discretion, and the justices are the ones deciding whether or not they have it.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 1w

Handguns (spelled handgonne at the time) also existed at the time of the founding

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 1w

(US v. Wong Kim Ark)

upvote 6 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 1w

Not in any modern sense. The longest lived founding father was James Madison, who died in 1835, which was before the brass cartridge existed. Did they have some extremely rare, ludicrously impractical multi barreled, superposed loaded muskets? Yes. Is that a machine gun? No.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 1w

It would literally be considered a machine gun under modern atf definition if it was at all considered a firearm

upvote 3 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 1w

One trigger pull gave you more than one fire cycle. Was it of the utmost practicality and at the level of a modern firearm? No, nothing of that era was, but it certainly was a machine gun from my understanding of what that means. Would you like to pose an alternative definition?

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 1w

Well, if we’re talking legality, those are not machine guns by definition. They’re “antique firearms” as defined in 18 USC § 921(a)(16) which generally exempts them from GCA “firearm” regulation.

upvote 0 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 1w

Hence "if it were considered a firearm at all"

upvote 5 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 1w

I'm aware it's legally not considered a firearm, but my definition of firearm differs from the government's definition since the government's is wholly inaccurate, specifically exempting entire classes of firearms like muzzle loaders, but I'm curious where your definition of machine gun differs from the governments because I don't really see any inaccuracy with it.

upvote 6 downvote