What is it like to be Benedict Arnold?

I called you disingenuous for cutting the quote o wise and learned one, and for not responding to the parts of the post which you cut. No apology was given because none was necessary, as you are a quote cutter.

 

So... you cannot point out anything that indicates the NRA wanted the ATF to rule that bump-stocks create a machine gun under the NFA, and/or supports the fact they did. Thank you.

Further::

This week, the Department of Justice announced that it would soon be releasing a final rule classifying “bump-stock-type-devices” as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act.

These devices came to national attention in October 2017 after the horrific attack in Las Vegas. As multiple media accounts correctly pointed to at the time, there was overwhelming legislative support for proposals that went far beyond these specific devices and some that could have potentially jeopardized all semiautomatic firearms. Rather than sit back and watch a legislative over-reaction, the NRA asked Congress to let ATF review its prior determinations on bump fire stocks.

Some have used our October 2017 statement to claim that NRA supports ATF’s final rule, but as NRA-ILA’s Executive Director Chris Cox noted only days after our statement was issued, “We don’t believe that bans have ever worked on anything.”

We also made this clear in our comments to ATF on the proposed rule earlier this year. In our comments, we further advised that ATF should at a minimum make an amnesty period available to deal with the fundamental inequity imposed on law-abiding gun owners who purchased their bump fire stocks in good faith reliance on prior ATF determinations. We continue to pursue the availability of a period of amnesty with the administration.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181221/nra-statement-on-bump-fire-stock-rule

And so, there's -absolutely- no support for the idea that the the NRA wanted the ATF to rule that bump-stocks create a machine gun under the NFA, and/or supports the fact they did.

Feel free to delude yourself otherwise.

 

Regulations of the sort they put on guns, restrictions on purchase, sale, carry, ownership, etc: are unconstitutional as infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.
You know that, and were this NOT a thread talking **** about your precious NRA you simply cannot accept isn't really in your corner, you'd be crowing all about it.
NFA? Unconstitutional. GCA? Same. Hughes? Same.
THOSE are the sorts of 'additional regulations' that had been proposed when LaPierre made his initial written statement and when he did his interview.
THOSE are the sorts of 'additional regulations' he supported in his written statement. To make it worse, when he doubled down in the interview he ALSO endorsed it as something that could be accomplished through pure interpretation AND he acted as if the ATF had never ruled MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF YEARS that this was not a machinegun.

 

Bless your little heart.

 

As you know, this is irrelevant to the point put to you - you indeed cannot explain how support for "additional regulations" necessarily translates to "calling for / support for a ban".
Thus, non-seq.

Bless your little heart.

 

You must not have read either what I wrote or the pathetic CYA please give us your money bullshit you just posted:

"These devices came to national attention in October 2017 after the horrific attack in Las Vegas. As multiple media accounts correctly pointed to at the time, there was overwhelming legislative support for proposals that went far beyond these specific devices and some that could have potentially jeopardized all semiautomatic firearms. Rather than sit back and watch a legislative over-reaction, the NRA asked Congress to let ATF review its prior determinations on bump fire stocks."

^ There you have it from their own mouth on yet another attempt to mitigate the damages they caused by letting the truth of their opinions out.
They intentionally did this to try to throw the grabbers a bone. The compromised on an infringement and did so in such a way as to invite infinite executive curtailment of rights by simple fiat.
Real great plan there.

 

Don't dodge the question and cut quotes and you won't get called out for it dear. Don't be sore about it

 

So you don't want to wax philosophic about what "shall not be infringed " means and how it actually allows for infringements?

 

I'm sorry you hate the fact there's -absolutely- no support for the idea that the the NRA wanted the ATF to rule that bump-stocks create a machine gun under the NFA, and/or supports the fact they did -- but, fact it remains.

 

^^ There it is again since you're a quote cutter. Particularly since you should take that admission with all the others from the other statements

 

You agreed I answered the question, and answered it correctly - don't be disingenuous, dear..

 

Facet remains:
There's -absolutely- no support for the idea that the the NRA wanted the ATF to rule that bump-stocks create a machine gun under the NFA, and/or supports the fact they did.

 

All I see here is your continued admission that you indeed -cannot- explain how support for "additional regulations" necessarily translates to "calling for / support for a ban".
Thus, non-seq.

 

Again: I called you disingenuous in the first place because you cut the quotes.
Also: The "question" was me asking what Mr LaPierre thinks causes the "blurring" of the line between semi auto and full auto by adding a bumpstock to the semi. What quality of the bumpstock could he be referring to that "blurs" the line?
Can you tell the class?

 

Jeez you're worse than Vegas Giant.

 

You asked, I answered, you agree my answer is correct.
Ignoring the irrelevant isn't disingenuous.

 

I've already done so, and you've simple dodged the question.

Which regulations on firearms are NOT infringements of the right to keep and bear arms?

 

I'm sorry you hate the truth - but, the facts remain as stated, and you cannot arguer against them.

 

1) I called you disingenuous because you cut the quote and said so at the time. If you think that isn't true: QUOTE ME.
2) The question was posed as a rhetorical device, don't be obtuse dear.
3) Let's phrase it another way since you're having trouble understanding: Mr. LaPierre claims bumpstocks blur the line between semi auto and full auto. What quality of bumpstocks in operation on semi automatic rifles would Mr. LaPierre possibly be referring to when he claims that bumpstocks "blur" the line between semi automatics and full automatics?

 

Just because you cut the quotes and declare victory doesn't mean you've made an argument. Like I said: You're just like Vegas Giant.

 

You know your statement above, is false -- nothing in your response addressed the issue put to you .
Disagree?

The issue put to you :
Explain how support for "additional regulations" necessarily translates to "calling for / support for a ban".

Cite the post and the text to where you drew this necessarily relationship.

 

Aww.. bless your heart -- Ignoring the irrelevant isn't disingenuous, dear.

 

And the winner for most cowardly response possible goes to....TOG 6.

Congratulations! On the way out, please pick up your signed copy of Dianne Feinstein's latest book, "I support the Second Amendment, but..."

 

Here's the exchange. I tried to get it in order, let me know if you think its out of order and where.

1) See how I'm accusing you of being disingenuous for cutting the quote? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous
2) Here's what I asked:
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"?

I'm asking you what Mr. LaPierre is referring to when he, consistently and over the course of multiple statements/interviews, claims that bumpstocks can "blur the line" between semi auto and full auto. To what quality could he be referring?

The above emphasized question should be simple to answer. I've asked it numerous times, from the beginning of this exchange we're now discussing, and you've consistently avoided answering it because you know exactly to what he's referring: "o lawdy it done makes it shoots like durr machinegunnss"

 

Fact: I answered your question
Fact: Nothing else you offered is relevant to that answer.
Why do you hate the truth?