What is it like to be Benedict Arnold?

Bullshit. See their original statement: ". . . 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. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. . . "

Devices (that would be firearms accessories), designed to allow semi automatic rifles (an arm) to function like (as in SIMILARLY TO, not SAME AS. ) fully-automatic rifles (also just an arm) SHOULD (as in they support what follows the word) BE SUBJECT (be made to submissive to) to ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS.

Here we have them 1) admitting the legality of current full auto regulations which is a ban on all new examples from May 1986 on and an arbitrary and capricious taxation scheme not designed to accrue revenue as its primary purpose (Hughes amendment, NFA, GCA), 2) saying that accessories which might make a semi auto FUNCTION LIKE a full auto SHOULD be subject to additional regulations as full autos are.

That would be them both supporting the current ban and signaling their support for more.

Do you disagree? Why or why not? Am I missing context in that statement to show they're not really 1) supporting the current laws on full autos and 2) supporting more regulations on anything similar to a full auto? Do point out what I'm missing, I'd hate to be running these people down if they're innocent.

 

Explain how support for "additional regulations" necessarily translates to "calling for / support for a ban"

 

^From the CBS interview you were citing.

He's saying outright ATF and Feinstein have said its not an interpretive issue, the executive can't just change the statutes. And he's saying "no its an interpretive issue. " they need to "do their job" they need to "draw a brightline".
"Draw a brightline" like o say by releasing multiple letters and decisions on how a bumpstock ain't a ****ing machine gun over the course of YEARS?

Here we also have him doubling down on his endorsement of machinegun bans which is implied in his written statement. He also claims it blurs the line between machineguns and semi autos. It doesn't its just a semi auto being activated quickly AS a semi auto. It is in no way shape or form a machinegun because its not capable of automatic fire, it requires constant manual manipulation. Which is another poor showing from someone who speaks for a guns rights org.
If he didn't support more regs, 1) he'd never have released a WRITTEN STATMENT saying he did and 2) when he appeared to "clarify" what he'd said he would've said "the ATF has made a brightline rule, several times. It is the same brightline rule that the statute lays out, and bumpstocks don't fit the definition anymore than a rubber band does or a belt loop or jerry miculak's trigger fingers do. "

 

Explain to me what "shall not be infringed" means.

 

Tell me TOG, what is the cyclic rate at which the line between semi auto and machine gun "blurs" according to Mr. LaPierre and therefore the rate at which they may be subjected to "additional regulations" as you FINALLY admit he supports?

How many rounds per minute is too fast to not be subject to "additional regulations"?

 

Yes.
In short he says the Democrats are trying to blur the line between semi-auto and auto, that the line is defined by law, not interpretation, and the ATF needs to come out and say so

 

I'm sorry -- did you explain how support for "additional regulations" necessarily translates to "calling for / support for a ban"?
Did I miss it?

 

Semi-auto and full auto are not defined by rate of fire.

 

"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." -- Wayne Lapierre

He very specifically stated that the ATF's decision to "legalize" bump stocks "fuzzed the line."

I'm sorry if you find that fact to be inconvenient.

 

Still taking it out of context, eh?
I again accept your concession of the point.

 

ATF didn't "legalize" bump stocks - they were already legal. ATF said in 2010 that they had no authority to make any decision on bump stocks at all, as they were not machine gun devices.

"When the first bump stock came across Rick Vasquez’s desk in 2010, he knew that his evaluation would take longer than usual. As the senior technical expert for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, it was Vasquez’s job to help give opinions about whether new guns and gun products would be legal under federal law. The bump stock, manufactured by a company called Slide Fire Solutions, did something novel: It used the recoil from firing a round from a semiautomatic rifle — as opposed to a spring or a crank — to make it fire at nearly the same rate as a machine gun. The ATF defines a machine gun as any weapon that is capable of firing multiple rounds with the single pull of the trigger. Under federal law, machine guns are strictly regulated, and have been out of production in the United States since 1986. The question before Vazquez and his team: Did a bump stock transform a rifle into a machine gun, making it illegal? After months of testing the devices and studying the law, the ATF arrived at a decision. It ruled that the bump stock did not make a gun fully automatic, because the trigger of a rifle equipped with the device still had to be engaged every time the weapon fired. “We could not find a way to classify it as a machine gun,” Vasquez said. "

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/atf-bump-stock-evaluation-legal-machine-gun/

http://vpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ATF-bump-fire-letter-2010.pdf

 

"WAYNE LAPIERRE: It's illegal to convert a semiautomatic to a fully automatic. A.T.F. needs to do its job. They need to look at this and do its job.

JOHN DICKERSON: Her argument is and the A.T.F.'s is they can't rule on this. It's out of their purview. That it has to be done in legislation. So is the N.R.A. position it can be done through legislation or you oppose it? Where are you on this?

WAYNE LAPIERRE: No, we think A.T.F. ought to do its job, look at this, and draw a bright line.

JOHN DICKERSON: If I'm a Republican and I'm a fan of the N.R.A., do I want to say no or yes to legislation that does this?

WAYNE LAPIERRE: I think you want to tell A.T.F. to do its job. It's an interpretive issue, and they need to get the job done."

Except here he is calling it an issue that should be handled by interpretation. They need to "draw a brightline". They had already drawn a bright line on this, for several years.

I think you need to take the rose colored glasses off

 

The answer is in what an INFRINGEMENT of the 2nd amendment is. Can you tell the class what shall not be infringed means and how subjecting a firearm accessory (not even the arm itself but a piece for it) to "additional regulations" would NOT violate the prohibition against infringement in the 2a?

If you can do that you will have explained how support for additional regulations is not indicative of a lack of support for the 2a.

 

Mr. LaPierre thinks a bumpstock "blurs the line". I can only assume he means by rate of fire. If not by rate of fire than what on Earth is he talking about?

He's also admitted his support for full auto bans in each statement we've discussed, both the written one and the clarifying interview. So how do you square that, exactly?

And having an accessory that helps you manually activate the trigger more quickly while still firing 1 round per pull isn't a machinegun but Mr. LaPierre is having quite a time understanding that and thinks the ATF needs to "do its job" and "draw a brightline rule" and that this is an "interpretive issue".

 

I agree. However I was quoting Wayne LaPierre. Those were his words, not mine (note the quotation marks.)

 

This does nothing to challenge, much less negate, the soundness of my response.
Semi-auto and full auto are not defined by rate of fire, and so any discussion regarding same is irrelevant.

 

Please don't cut the quotes TOG, it makes you seem disingenuous

Let's have an answer to those questions you keep dodging: "If not by rate of fire than what on Earth is he talking about?"

"He's also admitted his support for full auto bans in each statement we've discussed, both the written one and the clarifying interview. So how do you square that, exactly?"

 

Ok.. so what in the entirety of the interview makes you believe the NRA wanted the ATF to rule that bump-stocks create a machine gun under the NFA, and/or supports the fact they did?

 

You asked a question. I gave you the answer.
Is my answer incorrect?

 

Having trouble remembering what you've read so far today?

 

Its not incorrect, but then I didn't compare them in that way Mr LaPierre did. Seeing as how you're here defending what he's said, this is a perfectly relevant question.
If the line isn't blurred because of the ease of rapid semi automatic fire with a bump stock then what is it blurred by?

 

So, you indeed cannot explain how support for "additional regulations" necessarily translates to "calling for / support for a ban".
Thus, non-seq.

 

I'll ask again:
What in the entirety of the interview makes you believe the NRA wanted the ATF to rule that bump-stocks create a machine gun under the NFA, and/or supports the fact they did?

 

I'll accept your apology for your "disingenuous" comment.

 

I quoted you the post so you could follow it. Here it is again:

Emphasis mine since you apparently have trouble reading. Bless your little heart.

He thinks this is an interpretive issue: Its not, executive interpretation cannot alter the plain language to twist it into something else that doesn't fit the definition. That should scare the **** out of you plenty that he's allowing for that sort of executive rule making.

Not to mention: ATF had ALREADY DRAWN the brightline. Hell, the ****ing brightline is IN the statute itself in the definition of machinegun.

Pair this with his original WRITTEN (and thus well considered, and in an org like NRA-ILA you KNOW it went past at least one lawyer for approval as to form, not to mention the persons who signed their names to it) statement about supporting "additional regulations" and his implicit agreement in both statements with the machinegun laws as they stood then and have been expanded now, and its not a pretty picture.
At best they are milquetoast moderates.

Explicate how I've apparently just taken all this out of context. Show me the context, in either statement written or spoken, that shows I'm wrong.