Trump: "Bumps Stocks will Be Gone" - Page 3
Register

Welcome to the Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Trump: "Bumps Stocks will Be Gone"

This is a discussion on Trump: "Bumps Stocks will Be Gone" within the HandGuns, Pistols and Revolvers, Long Rifles, Shotguns, SKS, AK, AR forums, part of the Weapons, Protection, Self Defense, Hand to Hand Combat category; Originally Posted by The Resister What do you need evidence OF? Did you fail social civics in high school? Let's start talking high school civics. ...

Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 161
Like Tree166Likes

Thread: Trump: "Bumps Stocks will Be Gone"

  1. #21
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    8,419
    Quote Originally Posted by The Resister View Post
    What do you need evidence OF? Did you fail social civics in high school? Let's start talking high school civics. HERE is your evidence:

    "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Article I Section 9 Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States.

    In 1994, Bill Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban into effect. Due to the fact that you cannot pass an ex-post facto law any banned weapon that was legally owned on or before the date of the Assault Weapon Ban, was still perfectly legal to own. That is because an ex - post facto law is defined as:

    "ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:

    Art 1, § 9 This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
    Art. 1 § 10. This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.


    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto

    So-called "assault weapons were legally owned prior to Clinton signing the ban were protected. That is a FACT.

    Here is a direct quote from the Wall Street Journal:

    "The proposed federal ban on bump stocks would require owners to hand over or destroy the devices that make semiautomatic rifles shoot like rapid-fire machine guns."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/propose...rce-1523185201

    Do you see any ex - post language there? NO. If you have a bump stock after the time period runs out to turn them in or destroy them, you will be in violation of federal law. So, what is the difference?

    The government will simply argue that the executive department does not "pass" laws regarding bump stocks. The executive branch of the government does not legislate. The president simply hands down an executive directive or order. The ban, though ex post facto, will hold up in court because the executive department does not legislate laws.

    The underlying issue is that bump stocks were submitted to the government for approval. The government said the bump stock did not affect the mechanical functionality so as to be anything but legal. So, NOTHING changed. Trump simply decided to pretend he's doing something.

    Common sense dictates to me that Trump is setting a precedent that features on a previously "legally" held weapon can be outlawed. So, when a liberal president begins outlawing magazines, flash suppressors, folding / collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, barrel shrouds and / or vertical grips it will have the effect of outlawing entire classes of weapons.

    Again, what Trump is doing is using his power (and doing so illegally) to legislate and to outlaw weapons on the basis of superficial features. NOTHING holds back a future president from following suit.
    Ok, so again, you have ZERO proof of future events.
    You *THINK* you know. You make sure you blast it out as if it was fact.
    But you don't know.
    You're making an assumption, and we all know what you do when you assume...

    Until it becomes part of the federal register, you can guess, and proclaim, and pontificate to your little hearts content, riling up the troops and spiking your blood pressure.
    All the while reminding us all that you're the only one in the country who understands these things...
    And until it is written in the books, it's just speculation.

    Are you always so quick to conclude things when no real facts exist? Is speculation and conjecture sufficient for your decision making?
    If you would only tweak your arguments slightly, to say you "think" a retro-active change is coming, or that you "anticipate" such an action, that would give you some credibility.
    But to state it as if it were fact, when nothing stands to support the claim "yet", reduces your argument to foolishness.

    I certainly oppose a future as you describe. However, we don't know if that is actually what will happen. I'm not one to fly off the handle because of a "maybe" scenario. I would caution you to temper yourself in the same manner. It does no good.
    You claim to be a legal scholar, so I would hope you have connections to people who can get real answers. Not a WSJ article, not some radio host's latest vision dream, but a real solid contact with knowledge of current activities in the federal government concerning this action. Heck, the video even names the lawyer at the root of it all. It shouldn't be too hard for a man of your legal stature and influence to reach out to him and find out the REAL truth.
    Let us know how it goes, and what you find out.

    Until then, let's keep the apocalyptic claims to a low murmur.
    "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H. L. Mencken

  2. #22
    Banned


    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Kauboy View Post
    Ok, so again, you have ZERO proof of future events.
    You *THINK* you know. You make sure you blast it out as if it was fact.
    But you don't know.
    You're making an assumption, and we all know what you do when you assume...

    Until it becomes part of the federal register, you can guess, and proclaim, and pontificate to your little hearts content, riling up the troops and spiking your blood pressure.
    All the while reminding us all that you're the only one in the country who understands these things...
    And until it is written in the books, it's just speculation.

    Are you always so quick to conclude things when no real facts exist? Is speculation and conjecture sufficient for your decision making?
    If you would only tweak your arguments slightly, to say you "think" a retro-active change is coming, or that you "anticipate" such an action, that would give you some credibility.
    But to state it as if it were fact, when nothing stands to support the claim "yet", reduces your argument to foolishness.

    I certainly oppose a future as you describe. However, we don't know if that is actually what will happen. I'm not one to fly off the handle because of a "maybe" scenario. I would caution you to temper yourself in the same manner. It does no good.
    You claim to be a legal scholar, so I would hope you have connections to people who can get real answers. Not a WSJ article, not some radio host's latest vision dream, but a real solid contact with knowledge of current activities in the federal government concerning this action. Heck, the video even names the lawyer at the root of it all. It shouldn't be too hard for a man of your legal stature and influence to reach out to him and find out the REAL truth.
    Let us know how it goes, and what you find out.

    Until then, let's keep the apocalyptic claims to a low murmur.
    I'm not making an assumption. I'm telling you like it is. I'm not sure you can understand the way the law works. I don't need to be a "legal scholar," but I did have lunch with a state senator and a former state attorney general. We had this very discussion.

    Knowing how the law plays out is not 100 percent accurate, but I know damn well what I'd do if Trump opened that door for me and I were a flaming liberal. I suppose that by studying the issue from both sides is the reason that, whether you like it or not, makes me pretty damn good at what I do.

    Having a precedent to work from is a far better indicator than you having that much faith in a mortal man that would lie to you in a heartbeat... Trump IS a politician after all. I don't like waiting until the Titanic is sinking to start figuring a way off the boat. I can explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

    AND what I presented as FACT is just that: FACT.

    And if you asked my critics that didn't fare too well how accurate my predictions can be, they would have to grudgingly admit, yep the guy was right.

  3. #23
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    8,419
    Quote Originally Posted by The Resister View Post
    I'm not making an assumption. I'm telling you like it is. I'm not sure you can understand the way the law works. I don't need to be a "legal scholar," but I did have lunch with a state senator and a former state attorney general. We had this very discussion.

    Knowing how the law plays out is not 100 percent accurate, but I know damn well what I'd do if Trump opened that door for me and I were a flaming liberal. I suppose that by studying the issue from both sides is the reason that, whether you like it or not, makes me pretty damn good at what I do.

    Having a precedent to work from is a far better indicator than you having that much faith in a mortal man that would lie to you in a heartbeat... Trump IS a politician after all. I don't like waiting until the Titanic is sinking to start figuring a way off the boat. I can explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

    AND what I presented as FACT is just that: FACT.

    And if you asked my critics that didn't fare too well how accurate my predictions can be, they would have to grudgingly admit, yep the guy was right.
    You throw around the word "fact", but don't seem to actually know what it means. A fact can be proven. Until ink is put to paper on this action, you can't prove a darn thing.
    Then, in the next breath, you speak of your PREDICTIONS!
    Finally, a bit a truth.
    You are making a prediction. A guess based on intuition and experience, but a guess nonetheless.
    I can respect someone who makes *predictions* with some authority on the matter. I cannot respect someone who proclaims *facts* for that which does not exist.

    Your assumption of my faith in Trump is inaccurate. I guess that prediction didn't pan out too well.
    I don't know what he will do, but I know he is speaking and acting as if he is going to do something I don't agree with. I'm not entering a state of panic over it just yet since we DON'T HAVE THE FACTS. However, I am paying close attention to it.

    We have no objective reason to believe you are "good at what you do". Keep the self aggrandizement toned down a notch.

    I did chuckle a bit when you claimed that you weren't sure I could understand "the way the law works", when you just went on a rant about how this won't be a law. Thanks for that.
    The folks you had lunch with don't sound like they are part of the action in the least, so their opinion is just that. I'm looking for 1st hand accounts of the real work being done.
    Until then, yes, all you have is assumption.
    "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H. L. Mencken

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PrepperForums.net
    Advertisements
     

  5. #24
    Banned


    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Kauboy View Post
    You throw around the word "fact", but don't seem to actually know what it means. A fact can be proven. Until ink is put to paper on this action, you can't prove a darn thing.
    Then, in the next breath, you speak of your PREDICTIONS!
    Finally, a bit a truth.
    You are making a prediction. A guess based on intuition and experience, but a guess nonetheless.
    I can respect someone who makes *predictions* with some authority on the matter. I cannot respect someone who proclaims *facts* for that which does not exist.

    Your assumption of my faith in Trump is inaccurate. I guess that prediction didn't pan out too well.
    I don't know what he will do, but I know he is speaking and acting as if he is going to do something I don't agree with. I'm not entering a state of panic over it just yet since we DON'T HAVE THE FACTS. However, I am paying close attention to it.

    We have no objective reason to believe you are "good at what you do". Keep the self aggrandizement toned down a notch.

    I did chuckle a bit when you claimed that you weren't sure I could understand "the way the law works", when you just went on a rant about how this won't be a law. Thanks for that.
    The folks you had lunch with don't sound like they are part of the action in the least, so their opinion is just that. I'm looking for 1st hand accounts of the real work being done.
    Until then, yes, all you have is assumption.

    You love to argue, don't you? In doing so, you LIE. Now, exactly what did I present as a fact? Allow me to retrieve it for you:

    "So-called "assault weapons were legally owned prior to Clinton signing the ban were protected. That is a FACT."

    Those are my exact words and I stand behind them, sir. Is there anybody else on this board that would like to debate whether or not the above statement is exact and is a fact?

    Now, here is another FACT for you:

    In March of 2018, Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General working in the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT proposed banning bump stocks.

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attor...ng-bump-stocks

    Here is another FACT for you:

    "The Justice Department’s proposed rule “would define ‘machine gun’ to include bump-stock-type devices under federal law — effectively banning them,” Mr. Sessions said in a statement.

    The proposed bump stock ban would defy the conclusion of Justice Department officials who have said that they could not, under existing law, stop the sales of bump stocks, accessories that allow semiautomatic guns to mimic automatic fire, and that congressional action was needed to ban them. But Mr. Sessions said the department had worked around those concerns.
    "

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/u...mp-stocks.html

    So, pray tell, HOW IN THE HELL DID SESSIONS "WORK AROUND" THE EXISTING LAWS AS UNDERSTOOD NOT ONLY BY MYSELF BUT THE ATTORNEYS WITHIN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?

    So, again, what I told you is a fact. Sessions plans on arguing in court that he does not legislate. He plans on arguing that the Constitution, on this issue (the prohibition on ex-post facto laws) applies to the LEGISLATIVE branch of government that passes laws.

    Additional FACTS remain, sir:

    The inventor of the bump stock said that the device does not change the functionality of the firearm. BATFE examined it and agreed. NOTHING has changed. So, the facts are, the Attorney General is about to use his power to illegally legislate a ban on a feature of a firearm simply because some people want to outlaw firearms on the installment plan. The ban has NOTHING to do with the functionality of the firearm.

    Any idiot with an IQ above their shoe size can look at the facts and see that a liberal can and will use that precedent to outlaw other features as well. It's not a pie in the sky, baseless prediction. It is the method that court cases are fought and won in courtrooms every single day. And, obviously, that flies over your head. There is no "assumption" there at all sir. Past performance is a pretty good determinative factor in future performance. If you beat the Hell out of your wife and she divorces you, there is a probability that you will beat your second wife. Sorry, dude, but you are trying to operate out of your league.

    Donald Trump is not God and he has no more respect for the Constitution than any other lying politician. It is only through vigilance and our own actions that keep politicians in line. If you prefer to be hoodwinked, you have every Right to be wrong. for the others, Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.

  6. #25
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,589
    As the owner of 15 AR Platform Weapons and 5 AK/AKM platform Weapons I can honestly say I would never consider purchasing or utilizing a Give Away Bumpstock . That said I understand that creeping incrementalism grates on you guys . But Understand As I'm in California I'm slightly jaded and I understand that at least in my state THE DEMOCRATS are the bad actors as far as 2A/RTKBA goes ...

  7. #26
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    8,419
    Quote Originally Posted by The Resister View Post
    You love to argue, don't you? In doing so, you LIE. Now, exactly what did I present as a fact?
    I called out the claim specifically in a post I made, but since you didn't write that post, you likely didn't read it.
    Your words:
    Quote Originally Posted by The Resister View Post
    Adding insult to injury, there will be no "pre-ban" bump stocks as there would be IF Diane Frankenstein got enough support to outlaw them.
    I even underlined it in the original post, but you must have missed that too.

    Most of what you blathered on about had nothing to do with my original request for evidence on this single simple claim. What someone "says" has nothing to do with what a person "does". What Bill Clinton did in the past has no bearing on what will happen in the future. A news article is nothing more than a reporter's interpretation of a story. It too does not foretell the future as fact.
    I can provide unconnected and useless facts too, and claim that what I am stating is also fact, if I wanted to hide a small claim that wasn't actually fact.
    The sky is blue.
    The grass is green.
    Brett Kavanaugh will rape Elena Kagan upon confirmation to the Supreme Court.
    The sun is hot.
    Did I present enough verifiable facts for you to excuse and ignore the ones that can't be verified because they haven't happened yet? Doesn't matter, apparently, they're all facts because I said so.

    The SINGULAR bit of information you've now provided that helps support your PREDICTION is the link to the DOJ page.
    It provides a link to the actual "Notice of proposed rulemaking"(NPRM).
    In that text, we find this:
    The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that "bump fire" stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are "machineguns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.
    (explanation of the device's function)
    With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the rule.
    I took the liberty of highlighting the offending portion, which I presume is where your prediction arises. (Since this is a proposition of rule changing, it is clearly NOT existing fact, as the rule change has not taken place yet.)

    I went ahead and read the rest of the NPRM and found their reasoning to be a bit fuzzy, but nothing so striking as to claim that this will set precedent for future gun bans. Perhaps you've not actually read it yourself, but to think that a reclassifying of bump-stocks as machineguns, with the reasoning they've provided, can somehow escalate into banning all semi-automatic firearms is absurd and illogical. It would take an irrational leap, that would never hold up in court, to somehow cram a semi-automatic firearm into the definition of an automatic.

    This isn't even the first time this EXACT same reclassification and similar reasoning has been used to change a previously "legal" device into a "machinegun". Did you speak up when they concluded the Akins Accelerator to be a machinegun? Did you panic and claim it would set precedent for banning all guns? This is literally the exact same thing.
    They are essentially redefining terms. (yea, I know that can get hairy)
    Originally, they redefined a "single function" of the trigger to mean that if it only took one action to "initiate an automatic firing cycle", that was sufficient to fall into the definition of a machinegun. This is why the Atkins device was reclassified.
    Now, they are looking into the legal definition of "automatic"
    Specifically, ATF has determined that these devices initiate an "automatic[]" firing cycle sequence "by a single function of the trigger" because the device is the primary impetus for a firing sequence that fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger"
    They even address comments provided to them, of which many members here have also brought up.
    See below:
    Numerous persons commented that bump-stock-type devices do not fall under the statutory definition of "machinegun because, when attached, they do not change the mechanical functioning of a semiautomatic firearm, and still require a separate trigger pull for each fired round." They noted that bump firing is a technique, and pointed to many other ways in which a shooter can increase a firearm's rate of fire without using a bump-stock-type device.

    The Department disagrees. The relevant statutory question is whether a particular device causes a firearm to "shoot... automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 26 U.S.C 5845(b). Bump firing and other techniques for increasing the rate of fire do not satisfy this definition because they do not produce an automatic firing sequence with a single pull of the trigger. Instead, bump firing without an assistive device requires the shooter to exert pressure with the trigger finger to re-engage the trigger for each round fired. The bump-stock-type devices described above, however, satisfy the definition. ATF's classification decisions between 2008 and 2017 did not reflect the best interpretation of the term "automatically" as used in the definition of "machinegun," because those decisions focused on the lack of mechanical parts like internal springs in the bump-stock-type devices at issue. The bump-stock-type devices at issue in those rulings, however, utilized the recoil of the firearm itself to maintain an automatic firing sequence initiated by a single pull of the trigger. As with the Atkins Accelerator, the bump-stock-type devices at issue cause the trigger to "bump" into the finger, so that the shooter need not pull the trigger repeatedly to expel ammunition. As stated above, the ATF previously focused on the trigger itself to interpret "single function of the trigger," but adopted a better legal and practical interpretation of "function" to encompass the shooter's activation of the trigger by, as in the case of the Akins Accelerator, and other bump-stock-type devices, a single pull that causes the weapon to shoot until ammunition is exhausted or the pressure on the trigger is removed. Because these bump-stock-type devices allow multiple rounds to be fired when the shooter maintains pressure on the extension ledge of the device, ATF has determined that bump-stock-type devices are machinegun conversion devices, and therefore qualify as machineguns under the GCA and NFA.
    So, they are playing word judo, but seem to be within their legal purview.
    They've done it before.
    The Akins Accelerator was deemed a machinegun, and your concern about "ex post facto" implications didn't trigger much of a crisis then.
    Is it fair? No.
    Is it a constitutional violation? No, as no law is being passed.
    As to whether any of this violates the 2nd Amendment, that too was addressed in the NPRM, and it was decided that Heller only claimed the 2nd protected things that were *not* "dangerous and unusual" and that were "in common use". So, they feel their bump stock decision would hold up in a court that respects the Heller decision.

    Honestly, you should actually read the NPRM. You don't have to like it. (I certainly don't) But they aren't overstepping into any new area. They've done this before. And it can, in no way whatsoever, be misconstrued as setting any kind of precedent for future gun bans. Once the reasoning is understood and protocols are understood, you should realize that idea is ludicrous.

    Good Lord, that got long. You folks don't know how much I love you guys. The NPRM pdf file didn't allow selecting and copying of text, so I manually typed out EVERY SINGLE QUOTE taken from that document. Any typos are my fault.
    In hindsight, I could have downloaded it and run it through an OCR, but where's the fun typing training in that?
    I hope I made Mavis Beacon proud.

    And yes... I VERY MUCH like to argue. It is a personal character trait that I value, as it often reveals pompous individuals for their true selves when met with assertive resistance.
    However, I DO NOT LIE.
    I know what a "fact" is, and I know what a "fact" is not. Until an event has transpired, it cannot BY DEFINITION, be fact.
    Last edited by Kauboy; 10-03-2018 at 11:18 AM. Reason: Typos, typos galore!
    rice paddy daddy and inceptor like this.
    "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H. L. Mencken

  8. #27
    Banned


    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Kauboy View Post
    I called out the claim specifically in a post I made, but since you didn't write that post, you likely didn't read it.
    Your words:


    I even underlined it in the original post, but you must have missed that too.

    Most of what you blathered on about had nothing to do with my original request for evidence on this single simple claim. What someone "says" has nothing to do with what a person "does". What Bill Clinton did in the past has no bearing on what will happen in the future. A news article is nothing more than a reporter's interpretation of a story. It too does not foretell the future as fact.
    I can provide unconnected and useless facts too, and claim that what I am stating is also fact, if I wanted to hide a small claim that wasn't actually fact.
    The sky is blue.
    The grass is green.
    Brett Kavanaugh will rape Elena Kagan upon confirmation to the Supreme Court.
    The sun is hot.
    Did I present enough verifiable facts for you to excuse and ignore the ones that can't be verified because they haven't happened yet? Doesn't matter, apparently, they're all facts because I said so.

    The SINGULAR bit of information you've now provided that helps support your PREDICTION is the link to the DOJ page.
    It provides a link to the actual "Notice of proposed rulemaking"(NPRM).
    In that text, we find this:


    I took the liberty of highlighting the offending portion, which I presume is where your prediction arises. (Since this is a proposition of rule changing, it is clearly NOT existing fact, as the rule change has not taken place yet.)

    I went ahead and read the rest of the NPRM and found their reasoning to be a bit fuzzy, but nothing so striking as to claim that this will set precedent for future gun bans. Perhaps you've not actually read it yourself, but to think that a reclassifying of bump-stocks as machineguns, with the reasoning they've provided, can somehow escalate into banning all semi-automatic firearms is absurd and illogical. It would take an irrational leap, that would never hold up in court, to somehow cram a semi-automatic firearm into the definition of an automatic.

    This isn't even the first time this EXACT same reclassification and similar reasoning has been used to change a previously "legal" device into a "machinegun". Did you speak up when they concluded the Akins Accelerator to be a machinegun? Did you panic and claim it would set precedent for banning all guns? This is literally the exact same thing.
    They are essentially redefining terms. (yea, I know that can get hairy)
    Originally, they redefined a "single function" of the trigger to mean that if it only took one action to "initiate an automatic firing cycle", that was sufficient to fall into the definition of a machinegun. This is why the Atkins device was reclassified.
    Now, they are looking into the legal definition of "automatic"


    They even address comments provided to them, of which many members here have also brought up.
    See below:


    So, they are playing word judo, but seem to be within their legal purview.
    They've done it before.
    The Akins Accelerator was deemed a machinegun, and your concern about "ex post facto" implications didn't trigger much of a crisis then.
    Is it fair? No.
    Is it a constitutional violation? No, as no law is being passed.
    As to whether any of this violates the 2nd Amendment, that too was addressed in the NPRM, and it was decided that Heller only claimed the 2nd protected things that were *not* "dangerous and unusual" and that were "in common use". So, they feel their bump stock decision would hold up in a court that respects the Heller decision.

    Honestly, you should actually read the NPRM. You don't have to like it. (I certainly don't) But they aren't overstepping into any new area. They've done this before. And it can, in no way whatsoever, be misconstrued as setting any kind of precedent for future gun bans. Once the reasoning is understood and protocols are understood, you should realize that idea is ludicrous.

    Good Lord, that got long. You folks don't know how much I love you guys. The NPRM pdf file didn't allow selecting and copying of text, so I manually typed out EVERY SINGLE QUOTE taken from that document. Any typos are my fault.
    In hindsight, I could have downloaded it and run it through an OCR, but where's the fun typing training in that?
    I hope I made Mavis Beacon proud.

    And yes... I VERY MUCH like to argue. It is a personal character trait that I value, as it often reveals pompous individuals for their true selves when met with assertive resistance.
    However, I DO NOT LIE.
    I know what a "fact" is, and I know what a "fact" is not. Until an event has transpired, it cannot BY DEFINITION, be fact.
    What a bunch of blathering about NOTHING!

    YOUR CLAIM: "What Bill Clinton did in the past has no bearing on what will happen in the future."

    THE FACTS: My posting on that point was to show what happened when Clinton signed the Assault Weapon Ban versus what Sessions is proposing. Under the Assault Weapons Ban, if you owned a pre - ban weapon, it was considered legal. Under Sessions proposal, any bump stock that you currently own is illegal. I proved that AND explained what the difference is.

    You've done nothing here except make the idiotic presupposition that I have not researched the subject matter. NOTHING you've said detracts from the facts. Precedent, "Kauboy" relies on the most recent actions / rulings, not those that may have happened in the distant past. If the people wanted bump stocks outlawed, they should have followed the correct procedure - legislation.

    For Trump and Jeff Sessions to violate the Constitution just because somebody did something similar in the past does not justify the action. Two wrongs do not equal a right. If you like to argue, you should figure out first whether or not you have a point to argue. In this case, you most assuredly do not. Secondly, and most importantly, discussion boards that are not actual debate boards are too biased to allow a fair and credible "debate" to happen. If an admin or moderator's favorite is getting creamed, they step in and close threads or ban the guy who is making points that admin or moderator don't want publicized. In short, you're in the wrong forum for a debate.

    I suspect that you won't go to a debate forum because then you would have to actually be held to the same standard as the person you were debating. The real reason you like to screw with folks on boards like this, is you can take advantage of the bias of those in charge. You think you have been appointed to expose those you think are pompous and arrogant, but you're here and loving to argue because this isn't a fair debate board and you can bully your way around. If you want to know who is pompous and arrogant, you need not go further than your own mirror. If you want to debate something, let's try a real debate board where there are rules to make it equal, fair and when you get your ass kicked, you don't have a buddy to jump in and save the day by forcing your opponent to face multiple side debates and risk censure.

    Kauboy, IF what you accused me of was not a lie, there isn't a cow in Texas. If you want an argument, you should have enough decency to START your own debate / argument so that the rest of us can decide whether or not to participate. Hijacking threads for the mere purpose of making fallacious arguments is juvenile at best. I'm not into arguing. A wise man told me you cannot argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    Last edited by The Resister; 10-03-2018 at 12:49 PM.

  9. #28
    Banned


    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Gator Monroe View Post
    As the owner of 15 AR Platform Weapons and 5 AK/AKM platform Weapons I can honestly say I would never consider purchasing or utilizing a Give Away Bumpstock . That said I understand that creeping incrementalism grates on you guys . But Understand As I'm in California I'm slightly jaded and I understand that at least in my state THE DEMOCRATS are the bad actors as far as 2A/RTKBA goes ...

    There are no good guys in the gun fight. Both the Ds and the Rs are lying pieces of scatalogical waste. The state of California suggests that the people will not rise up and demand their Rights and no compromises. Trump blinked. If he had any common sense, he would have offered ways to address gun violence with gun control.

  10. #29
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    484
    All this bickering over a ammo wasting toy.
    Sooner or later they were going to get something they can have the toy I'll keep the gun.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    inceptor likes this.

  11. #30
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    8,419
    Quote Originally Posted by The Resister View Post
    What a bunch of blathering about NOTHING!

    YOUR CLAIM: "What Bill Clinton did in the past has no bearing on what will happen in the future."

    THE FACTS: My posting on that point was to show what happened when Clinton signed the Assault Weapon Ban versus what Sessions is proposing. Under the Assault Weapons Ban, if you owned a pre - ban weapon, it was considered legal. Under Sessions proposal, any bump stock that you currently own is illegal. I proved that AND explained what the difference is.

    You've done nothing here except make the idiotic presupposition that I have not researched the subject matter. NOTHING you've said detracts from the facts. Precedent, "Kauboy" relies on the most recent actions / rulings, not those that may have happened in the distant past. If the people wanted bump stocks outlawed, they should have followed the correct procedure - legislation.

    For Trump and Jeff Sessions to violate the Constitution just because somebody did something similar in the past does not justify the action. Two wrongs do not equal a right. If you like to argue, you should figure out first whether or not you have a point to argue. In this case, you most assuredly do not. Secondly, and most importantly, discussion boards that are not actual debate boards are too biased to allow a fair and credible "debate" to happen. If an admin or moderator's favorite is getting creamed, they step in and close threads or ban the guy who is making points that admin or moderator don't want publicized. In short, you're in the wrong forum for a debate.

    I suspect that you won't go to a debate forum because then you would have to actually be held to the same standard as the person you were debating. The real reason you like to screw with folks on boards like this, is you can take advantage of the bias of those in charge. You think you have been appointed to expose those you think are pompous and arrogant, but you're here and loving to argue because this isn't a fair debate board and you can bully your way around. If you want to know who is pompous and arrogant, you need not go further than your own mirror. If you want to debate something, let's try a real debate board where there are rules to make it equal, fair and when you get your ass kicked, you don't have a buddy to jump in and save the day by forcing your opponent to face multiple side debates and risk censure.

    Kauboy, IF what you accused me of was not a lie, there isn't a cow in Texas. If you want an argument, you should have enough decency to START your own debate / argument so that the rest of us can decide whether or not to participate. Hijacking threads for the mere purpose of making fallacious arguments is juvenile at best. I'm not into arguing. A wise man told me you cannot argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    What "buddy" are you referring to that I apparently have in my back pocket?
    Are you suggesting I have moderators on my side? Again, an accusation with ZERO proof.

    *IF* this were taken to an actual debate forum, it would be on you to PROVE your facts. Since this event is only in the proposal phase, and the proposal even dictates "if the rule is consistent with this proposal", then this is clearly NOT something that can be classified as fact.
    Thus, the debate would be over before it could start... on a board with "rules to make it equal".
    I accused you of stating a fact that has not actually become rule, and is thus not a fact. That was NOT a lie.

    Just because you look foolish here doesn't mean you have to make wild accusations about being picked on or that I have some kind of protector watching over me.
    What a clown you are for making such baseless claims. Your credibility is decreasing with each post.

    The constitution is not being violated, since the constitution grants Congress the ability to pass law. They have passed laws delegating regulatory actions to various departments. In this case, that department falls under the Executive branch. The law allows for these regulatory entities to set statutory definitions. That is what they are doing, by executive request.
    Is it a misuse of the language? Perhaps.
    Has it been upheld in court time and time again? Yes.

    Quit bitching about this discussion somehow being unfair. Nobody is going to ban you for having a discussion, regardless of whether they agree with what you say or not.
    I would be the FIRST to vehemently oppose such an action, even against you.
    Keep within the site guidelines, and you have nothing to fear. Can you do that?
    inceptor likes this.
    "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H. L. Mencken

 

 
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Women's "Moral Superiority" gone?
    By RedLion in forum General Talk
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-25-2017, 09:17 PM
  2. "Irrelevant Democrats? Maybe, but they are not gone yet"
    By RedLion in forum Political News and Topics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-01-2017, 10:11 AM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-12-2016, 08:36 PM
  4. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 04-11-2016, 08:02 AM
  5. Izzit? bumps on the night...
    By oddapple in forum General Talk
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-12-2015, 11:12 AM
Back to Top