What is it like to be Benedict Arnold?

https://gunowners.org/images//GOA_COMPLAINT-.pdf

^Another lawsuit filed in Michigan by GOA

Thank goodness there are gun rights organizations talking up the fight while the NRA sits on its hands begging the administration for an "amnesty period."

 

If the NRA felt that the bump stock should be subject to additional regulations, why didn't they say anything about it when the ATF first published their decision in 2010?

 

Again, ask TOG 6 since it is his comment with which you're taking issue.

 

No, I'm taking issue with your entire position on the subject. You're stating that the NRA wanted the bump stock to have more regulation. Why didn't they come out with that position in 2010 when ATF made their initial statement?

 

Again, it was TOG 6 who made that statement. I simply quoted him. Then you quoted me quoting him. I'm not going to argue with you about SOMEONE ELSE'S comment even if I may agree and especially if it just serves to obfuscate the point of contention.

Are you afraid to ask the question of TOG 6 or something? Do you want me to ask him for you? We can move forward once he clearly states his position. Shouldn't be long so just hold your horses.

 

So... yes, you;re still trying to peddle your strawman and non seq.

No. You cannot.

I see.
And so, all it takes for you to be wrong is a pro-2A poster to criticize the ban.
Been there, done that. You're wrong.

Look at you, trying to move the goalpost in an effort to cover up your non-seq.
So cute.

 

It's a simple question. Did the NRA make a "statement that bump stocks should be subject to additional regulations"?

If you don't want to answer that's fine. Just dismiss me and say non seq for the millionth time.

 

They. Did. Not.

 

Why do you keep answering for him? You've made your opinion very clear. I haven't forgotten about you. I'll give you your turn after TOG 6 refuses to answer the question this last time.

 

It's an open forum. You want to limit your conversation to a single person, take it to PM.

 

Okay, Rucker, I believe TOG 6 may decline to answer so you're up. Let's hash this out.

I'll be very clear about what I'm saying happened in regards to the NRA. A few days after the shooting in Las Vegas the NRA, a gun rights organization, called on the ATF to immediately review whether bump stocks comply with federal law. Their reasoning for this was that the NRA thought that bump stocks and the ATF's decision that they were legal fuzzed the line between semiautomatics and fully automatics and they felt that the ATF wasn't doing their job.

Now that's why I fault the NRA in this entire boondoggle. Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, which part or parts?

I don't know why they took a position in 2010 just like I don't know why they took the position that bump stocks blurred the line between semi- and full-auto in 2017. I could certainly take an educated guess but it would be just that, a guess.

 

Fair enough. Wasn't trying to be rude to you, I just wanted to establish which facts TOG 6 and I agreed and disagreed on in order to have an honest debate and I felt like you were making that harder than it should have been for me.

 

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?
Thank you.

 

This is false.

This is also false.

Your placement of blame on the NRA is based on 2 false statements.
Says all that need be said.

 

The NRA said that "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."

They also said that "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,” or it is not."

It seems obvious that the NRA does not believe that a bump stock 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", and therefore the NRA does not believe that bump stocks are "devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles" and therefore "should be subject to additional regulations." The ATF had already determined that the bump stock did not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. There was no reason to expect that they would change that determination given the points made in the prior ruling. The call for another ATF review was similar to that of a lawyer asking the court clerk to reread a question and answer to the jury - to reemphasize the point already made.

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

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

 

Yes, reading the full text of the joint statement, the NRA did call for the ATF to re-re-re-review the legality of Bump Stocks. The NRA also said such devices need more regulation. This is just as I remember them doing at the time, an incredibly stupid thing to say. We gun owners are not in need of additional regulation, we are in need of less regulation and less infringement.

Now they are saying the proposed rule is flawed in a variety of ways. Well, here they are correct, it is badly flawed, I hope it crashes and burns in court.

If it does it will not change the fact that the NRA betrayed us on this issue.

 

Well let's examine that shall we because I used the NRA's wording in my comments.

My comment that you claim is false:

"A few days after the shooting in Las Vegas the NRA, a gun rights organization, called on the ATF to immediately review whether bump stocks comply with federal law." --Me​

This is from a statement released by the NRA 4 days after the LV shooting:

"Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law." --NRA​

My second statement that you claim is false:

"Their reasoning for this was that the NRA thought that bump stocks and the ATF's decision that they were legal fuzzed the line between semiautomatics and fully automatics and they felt that the ATF wasn't doing their job."​

The NRA one week after the LV shooting:

WAYNE LAPIERRE: "The fact is that the Obama administration a couple years ago legalized a device, their A.T.F., that fuzzed the line between semiautomatics and fully automatics. And if we're able to fuzz that line, all semiautomatics are at risk."

WAYNE LAPIERRE: "If you fuzz the line, they're all at risk. And we're not going to let that happen."

WAYNE LAPIERRE: "Well, I mean, the fact is the bump stock does fuzz the line though. And that's why A.T.F. needs to do its job."
​

Every word of my comment was 100% correct.

 

The only supposed "betrayal" on the issue stems from the lack of reading comprehension skills on the part of those who believe the NRA played any part in this illegal action coming into play.

 

Well they erect a war memorial in your honor not as a traitor but as a war hero and the liberal revisionist cultural-marxist taliban will not topple the monument while toppling other war memorials like those honoring Mexican-American war hero Robert E. Lee.


Boot Monument at Saratoga, NY
is dedicated to the most brilliant soldier of the Continental Army,
Major General Benedict Arnold

 

It does not honor Arnold. It does not name him, which is a form of condemnation in a memorial. If anything it points out the end of an honorable career and the last time the man was worth spit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument

As for the bulk of Southern Soldier memorial statues, those are a huge joke played on the South by manufacturers in the North. Late in the 19th century companies were sending salesmen around selling pre-made statues. A town could order a Union or Confederate statue. The differences were in hats, buckles, buttons and the like. Small details the makers could fasten to the common design. They went all over the South ripping off small towns, cities, counties and states.

 

Is there any actual information that can be cited to demonstrate such as being the case?

 

Citation, please.​

Citation, please.

​

 

When using Wikipedia which is not a reliable source, always go to the "talk page" on the topic.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-wayne-lapierre-on-face-the-nation-oct-8-2017/

 

As suspected: The whole story does tell the story he wants told.
Gee. Surprise.