What is it like to be Benedict Arnold?

No doubt. The man and his dedicated followers are as unstuck in reality as Billy Pilgrim was unstuck in time.

 

Dunno why the hell not, since outrageous hyperbole is apparently just what the doctor ordered, as far as you're concerned.

Pilgrim, we have a Supreme Court which went out of its way to countenance "gay marriage". I wouldn't put anything past these black robed Ephors.

 

It was done by regulatory agencies first, to set precedent and get the public used to the idea. Both marijuana and automatic firearms were originally restricted via catch-22 tax stamp requirements where you had to produce the product for examination to apply for the stamp, but could not legally own it without the stamp, and thus producing it during application was illegal. This was done prior to any legislative process. By the time anything went before the legislature, the products had been so stringently restricted by fiat that there wasn't enough popularity to garner any resistance to the legislation.

 

That's because almost no one uses bumpstocks or has any desire to. They're junk.

FTR I wasn't a big fan of it either. But if I need an automatic weapon, I'd retool one of my semi-autos to select fire, not use a bumpstock.

I'm about as pro-gun as anyone can get, but if after fixing employment and the economy, opting us out of climate fraud, killing the individual mandate, avoiding an endless war and ending another one and fighting tooth and nail to protect our borders, you'll dump Trump because he allowed infringement on your right to turn your rifle into an inaccurate, unreliable waste of ammo with a plastic toy, then I'm afraid we're just not going to come to an undertstanding...

 

This thread is addressing 2nd Amendment supporters so it isn't directed toward you but thank you for being honest about your disregard for the Bill of Rights. Most wouldn't admit to that.

If I had a nickle for every time I've heard that phrase uttered with a "but" at the end...

 

Please don't edit my comments for content. If you'd like to draw attention to a particular point, emboldening, italicizing or underlining are all great ways to do that without compromising the context of my point.

 

Sigh. Harrison narcotics act, national firearms act.

Please, educate yourself on the topic before you speak.

 

Do you perhaps mean the Marijuana Tax Act? The Harrison Narcotics Act applied to opium and coca, not cannibis.

 

I underlined the "but"...

 

And deleted everything after.

I don't do it to you, Im asking you very politely to not do it to me

 

The Harrison narcotics act is the first example of such a tactic, hence why I brought it up. One who is aware of the history of passage of the national firearms act will know that the $200 tax stamp part comes from the AG of the day suggesting same after touting the Harrison narcotics act's effectiveness on that front.
The marijuana act (1937) comes after NFA (1934)and the Harrison act (1917)

 

Actually, I see this whole thing as DT playing 4D-chess with the gun grabbers. This whole "ban" is so BLATANTLY Unconstitutional on at LEAST 4 levels, it pretty much guarantees when it gets to SCOTUS (and it will), they'll have little choice but to grant cert. And then, if they follow their own precedent from Heller ("in common use for lawful purposes"), they'll have no choice but to invalidate virtually all gun and accessory bans that exist, and make it impossible to make new ones. No more AWBs, no more mag restrictions, no more bump stock bans. It may not be enough to overturn the NFA, as between that and the Hughes Amendment it's kinda hard to argue that genuine automatic weapons are in "common use" because of their rarity. But it's equally true that those two laws are the reason they're not in "common use", so there's at least a chance they may kill those laws, too. Hopefully.

In either case, I think the end result will end most "gun control" laws as they currently exist. From coast to coast. And gun grabber heads will likely explode as a result.

 

Has it ever been considered on the part of yourself, that Donald Trump potentially supported such a course of action because he knew from the start that it would ultimately fall apart when challenged in court, thus forcing the public to accept and concede that these devices cannot be removed from the equation?

 

Oh brother, now the Trump cheerleaders would have everyone believe that Trump unilaterally banning bump stocks is a good thing for gun rights because of [convoluted and ridiculous conspiracy theory].

Come back to reality fellas.

 

A simple "no" would have been more than sufficient.

 

Oh I considered the idea that Trump illegally instituted a ban so that the thing he banned couldn't be banned but quickly realized how monumentally stupid that line of "reasoning" is.

 

Still peddling this straw-man and non seq?

- Can you cite anyone on the pro-gun side that has defenses Trump's decision?
- Can you demonstrate how the NRA's statement that bump stocks "should be subject to additional regulations" is a statement in support of said ban on bump stocks?
No?
Carry on.

 

More importantly, can he show that the NRA statement a) caused the ATF to relook at bump stocks and b) made them change their previous decision?

 

If the NRA possessed that sort of influence over the actions of the ATF, they would utilize it to remove a great deal of firearm-related regulations and restrictions that were implemented via interpretation of the ATF in the first place.

 

Loaded question fallacy.

Yes. However, this thread is addressing the "so-called 2nd Amendment 'supporters,'" that, "have not only failed to criticize or condemn the POTUS' or the NRA's actions but have been actively running interference for this new ban," and that's happening left and right in this thread alone. I put out the call and they came running. Do you just want to review the thread on your own or do you need me to give you specific post numbers?

Wait, let me get this straight...Are you saying that the NRA made a "statement that bump stocks should be subject to additional regulations"? And that you're okay with that?

 

They didn't say "bump stocks should be subject to additional regulations"". They said that anything that

Here's their part of their complete statement linked below:

"This focus on performance by claiming that a bump fire stock either “increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms” or “mimic automatic fire” is irrelevant to whether or not a bump fire stock is a machine gun. Either it is a “part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon . . . to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger,”10 or it is not. Beyond being irrelevant, ATF’s claim that “bump-stock-type devices . . . accelerate the firearm’s cyclic firing rate . . .” is simply incorrect. These devices do not affect the rate of fire of the host firearm, which is determined by the firearm’s operating system and, to a limited extent, certain environmental factors such as the level of lubrication and cleanliness of the host firearm."



https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510470/nra_comments_on_atf2017r-22.pdf

 

The possibility that Trump is playing some long game here is absurd. The man has shown that is a lousy deal maker. The only things he had going for him have been his father's gift of nearly a half a billion dollars (not just 1 million as he lied), a staff of lawyers skilled in the use of debt and tax dodges, cheating contractors out of their pay and a big fat cult of personality.

No, he is not playing "4D Chess". He is playing at being President, displaying no skill or understanding of much of anything. He saw some advantage to his image in banning bumpstocks, so he ordered it to happen. If he saw an advantage to ten round magazines he'd try and order the ATF to make a rule on that too.

Trump is not your friend. He merely plays one on TV.

 

I know you hold that questionable position but in this case I was quoting TOG 6 so you should direct your comment to him. Let me know what the two of you decide.

 

Or he wasn't lying all those years when he ran before saying how he wanted gun control... or when he ran most recently and said he'd like to take the guns first then have due process second.

 

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...riginal/1545161076/1-Complaint.pdf?1545161076

^ The complaint