What is it like to be Benedict Arnold?

Semi-auto and full auto are not defined by rate of fire.
Noting else is relevant to that fact.

 

Lmao, he's so afraid to answer a simple question.

 

When you can meaningfully address the truth, let us know.
Still waiting for you to explain how support for "additional regulations" necessarily translates to "calling for / support for a ban".

 

See, that's the part you're missing. Supporting additional regulations is NOT what the NRA is supposed to be doing. How do you not get that?

 

Good of you to recognize the NRA did not and does not support a ban on bump-stocks.

 

Feels like I'm debating Forrest Gump.

 

Here's the bottom line: NRA called for additional regulations on bump stocks. 2nd Amendment supporters are calling them out on that. Quisling posers are actively running interference for the NRA's actions.

 

The problem isn't the bump stock ban. The problem is the precedent set by allowing an executive order to ban the bump stocks. It doesn't take much imagination to use that same thing to ban all semi-automatics with a stroke of a pen. If you want bump stocks banned, write a law to do so.

 

No such rate of line actually exists. Either a firearm is semi-automatic, or it is fully-automatic. There are no other choices to be had, it is either one or the other.

No such standard legally exists, nor can any such standard actually be made to exist.

 

This is the takeaway that everyone must pay attention to regarding this matter.

The argument being made, is that because the ATF supposedly supported bump stocks being subject to additional regulations, that makes them complicit in the devices being subjected to total prohibition.

Ultimately the line of logic demonstrated means simply this. Any individual who supports firearm-related restrictions, is by extension calling for a total prohibition on firearms, as in their mind that is what "additional regulations" amounts to. Any proposal for more firearm-related restrictions that is proposed, no matter how minor, they in truth are supporting a total firearms prohibition and believe that such is acceptable, simply because it is an additional regulation to what already exists.

 

right wingers will always give a free pass to their hero tRUMP - as far as they are concerned, he can do no wrong even when he goes against any and everything they stand for

 

Understood.

Though Im not exactly horrified of the idea of the ban getting tied up in court for years as a result of it not being properly legislated. Feinstein herself worries the ban might not hold up in court.

"Presidents can rescind regulations just as easily as they create them, and in this case, the bump stock ban will likely be tied up in court for years. Only hours after the Trump administration released its final regulation, Gun Owners of America announced it would file a lawsuit.

To ensure a ban is implemented and protected from legal challenges, Congress must still pass a law banning bump stocks and other similar devices, such as trigger cranks."

To me, its just one more sign that an executive bump-stock ban was Trumps way of getting the banners to stf up about guns for a while and move on.

It should be noted that Feinstein herself admits that "Despite this, the agency has consistently stated that bump stocks could not be regulated under the current law. That was because they do not fit the legal definition of an automatic weapon under the National Firearms Act."

It sounds to me like bump stocks will only be illegal until sufficiently challenged in court.

I find this to be a particularly positive compromise. Not only did we quiet the banners with a token ban, the ban is most likely temporary.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...heres-issues-with-the-bump-stock-ban-n2538231

 

Hey man I agree with you but your boy Wayne LaPierre is going on and on about it.
One of numerous reasons the NRA isnt a great bet when it comes to standing up for gun rights these days. There are better choices. There. Now we've come full circle.

 

You broke the code. The way to get gun banners to stop banning things is to beat them to the punch and ban it first. Genius! /s

 

You may recall that the raucous calls to ban semi-autos and mags from Feinstein n' gang abrubtly and substantially subsided with the executive ban on bump stocks: which i reiterate is tenuous, could be easily reversed and may not hold up in court anyway.

Its not the best 'long-game', but its not the worst either.

 

No, I do not recall that. Feinstein was trying to ban anything in sight before, during, and after Las Vegas. They don't just stop and they never will. You cannot compromise with these people.

Beyond that, most of the Senate at the time had A-ratings from the NRA. If you're telling me that that Congress was on the verge of passing new gun control laws (I don't think they were), and that Trump would have then signed those new gun control laws, then that seems to be yet another problem that the NRA has going on right now. Why are they giving A-ratings to people willing to pass new gun control laws?

As for the court cases, we better hope that it gets struck down because if it doesn't there will be nothing stopping the next president from taking it upon himself to ban magazines over a certain capacity or scary black rifles or anything else they can dream up.

 

These are the same people that tell me "If you don't like to, leave!! 'Merica!"

They could take a bath in turpentine and couldn't feel clean enough.