Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Asks DOJ to propose regulations on ‘devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns’

Trump Asks DOJ to propose regulations on ‘devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns’

“I signed a memorandum directing the Attorney General to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbuXPFVD0xY

Tuesday, Trump announced he’d signed a memorandum, requesting the Department of Justice draft regulations that would ban bump stocks and any attachment that would turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic-like weapon.

Trump has been open to regulating gun modifications like the bump stock since the Vegas shooting, which left 58 people dead. After the Vegas shooting, Trump asked the DOJ to review whether devices like the bump stock were legal under current law.

Speaking after a White House press conference, Trump said:

“Just a few moments ago, I signed a memorandum directing the Attorney General to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns. I expect that these critical regulations will be finalized, Jeff, very soon.”

Monday, Mary blogged about Trump’s interest in improving federal background checks:

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders has announced that President Donald Trump expressed an interest to improve gun federal background checks.

From Fox News:

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump spoke on Friday to Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn about a bill the Texas Republican had introduced alongside Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., which would “improve federal compliance with criminal background check legislation.”

Sanders continued, “While discussions are ongoing and revisions are being considered, the president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system.”

Cornyn introduced his bill last November after a shooting at a Texas church. From USA Today:

The bill penalizes federal agencies that fail to properly report relevant records and provides incentives to states to improve their overall reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The bill also directs more federal funding to the accurate reporting of domestic violence records.

“For years agencies and states haven’t complied with the law, failing to upload these critical records without consequence,” Cornyn said. “Just one record that’s not properly reported can lead to tragedy, as the country saw last week in Sutherland Springs, Texas. This bill aims to help fix what’s become a nationwide, systemic problem so we can better prevent criminals and domestic abusers from obtaining firearms.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Regulations = not laws, but carry the weight of laws. Not voted for and passed by Congresscritters, but arbitrarily drafted and enforced because feelings. Break a not-law, still go to jail. Thanks, Teddy Roosevelt! Asshat.

    Milhouse in reply to MrSatyre. | February 20, 2018 at 5:13 pm

    What does Teddy Roosevelt have to do with it? Regulations are how the executive branch implements the laws Congress makes. That’s how it has always been, and there is no other way for a country to be run.

    casualobserver in reply to MrSatyre. | February 20, 2018 at 5:28 pm

    Um, regulations are challenged as being unlawful all the time. If a regulation isn’t supported by legislation, the plaintiff wins (or should).

    The only thing that complicates it are activist judges. So we might agree that the fewest regulations are the best situation just to give activists less chances to impose their will.

    I have to strenuously object. Congress was entirely clear that modifying a weapon to make it into a “machine gun” was illegal back during the Great Depression. The punishments had the weight of law because they were under the law. The ATF, under Obama, strangely decided bump stocks should be an exception to the law. The ATF did not criminalize bump stocks; it decriminalized them. Reversing this error does not mean the ATF voted itself the chief legislative body of the United States.

      The Packetman in reply to JBourque. | February 20, 2018 at 6:47 pm

      The ATF didn’t ‘exempt’ bump stocks nor did they ‘decriminalize’ them.

      They evaluated bump stocks and decided that they had no authority to regulate them, as they broke no law.

        I don’t think my original comment was as well worded as it could have been. My understanding of the law (from watching others debate it) is that you are correct, but MrSatyre’s effort to make this uncharacteristic act of restraint by the ATF an example of “regulations with the power of law” was stretching too far. It’s hard for me to swallow that the National Firearms Act was somehow not passed in 1934, not signed into law by FDR, not amended after a Supreme Court decision rendering it unenforceable, not overseen by the ATF after Congress chose to create the ATF from whole cloth, and that the executive branch came up with this idea as if it was DAPA or DACA.

        Surely better examples of regulatory overreach can be found.

          Tom Servo in reply to JBourque. | February 21, 2018 at 8:10 am

          On the one hand I had never heard of a “bump stock” before the Las Vegas shooting, so it’s hard to lament the loss of something I never knew existed; on the other hand, I’ve heard that anyone with a decent sized spare tire around the middle already has a pretty effective built in bump stock.

      Edward in reply to JBourque. | February 21, 2018 at 8:44 am

      Your error is in not understanding the legal definition which has been established for defining an “automatic” weapon (AKA a machine gun). A “semi-automatic” weapon can only fire one round for each cycle of the trigger. An “automatic” weapon can fire multiple rounds with a single cycle of the trigger. The “bump stock” does not alter the function of the trigger, it speeds up the cycling of the trigger to simulate automatic fire. Legally ATF was correct in not regulating bump stocks under the NFA.

This seems to be a good move. Manufactured fully automatic firearms are heavily regulated now. Adding at-home mods that are intended to circumvent these regs appears to be fair game.

    Milhouse in reply to bear. | February 20, 2018 at 5:18 pm

    Devices that turn semi-autos into autos are already classed as automatic weapons themselves and are subject to exactly the same regulations. Even a piece of string is an automatic weapon when it is designed and marketed as a device for turning a semi-auto into an auto. No further regulation is either required or possible.

    The problem with bump stocks is that they don’t turn an AR-15 into an automatic weapon, they just let you pull the trigger faster, at the expense of accuracy. There’s no legitimate purpose for such a thing, but there also doesn’t seem to be a law that can be fairly interpreted as authorizing the government to regulate or ban them. I don’t see how a new regulation would change that.

      jakee308 in reply to Milhouse. | February 20, 2018 at 5:30 pm

      What will most likely happen is that they will define it in such a way that other types of mechanisms will also be included and thus will cause much anger and law suits over it.

      This is why it already was being held up. And the bill that would’ve banned them was loaded with other crap that was not part of ensuring bump stocks were banned.

      They just can’t help themselves. Don’t be surprised to find they written a rule that is completely ineffective OR bans too many other mechanisms to the point of being adjudicated for the next 5 years.

        If it is anything but the most narrow definition of a reciprocating stock/grip that facilitates faster manipulation of the trigger, it will affect every aftermarket or modified trigger (ex for marksmanship and competition guns) out there. We’re talking tens of millions.

      alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | February 20, 2018 at 6:00 pm

      The bump stock is a flawed failure prone device. In a real battle, dangerous when dependability is demanded. The California ban on semi-automatic rifles… even from 100 years ago is the biggie. If one wishes the concept of counter-balance … then the history of Rhodesia is important… The Rhodesians had to revert to semi-auto to save ammo and won against insurgents with full auto. The ban of semi-auto is a game changer IF one believes in checks and balances. If not… take up bowling as President Clinton suggested.

        Arminius in reply to alaskabob. | February 22, 2018 at 5:47 pm

        One of my favorite gun writers of the late ’80s/early ’90s was Dean Grennell. He was in the Army Air Corps during WWII, and was an aerial gunnery instructor in Nevada during the entire war.

        He wrote about a target practice session, with all the students using pintle-mounted .30 cal machine guns. These were not novice students, but trainees at least midway through the course of instruction. As soon as he started to say “commence firing” a coyote trotted out of the brush in front of the targets. As he put it, “You would have done it, I would have done it, they did it. They all thought to themselves ‘to hell with today’s score, I’m gonna get that coyote.'”

        I forget how many students were on the firing line; 10, 15, something like that. They all aimed at that coyote which immediately began the dodge-ball game of his life at supersonic speed. After the every student had expended the entire belt and dust settled, no coyote. Not a single bullet touched it.

        Dino said he lost a lot of his faith in full-auto right then.

      forksdad in reply to Milhouse. | February 20, 2018 at 8:23 pm

      Who are you to say, “no legitimate purpose?” First, I don’t need to give you a reason, second, if I enjoy shooting with a bump stock then that’s all the reason I need.

      Or none.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | February 20, 2018 at 9:56 pm

      Exactly they are basically a gimmick for people that don’t actually know how to use firearms.

      I discussed this with a couple of my old Army buddies one night over some very nice scotch. 2 of them had actually purchased bump stocks and tried them out. They immediately dismounted them and put them up on a shelf.

      Bump Stocks also cause to more problems such as jams and misfeeds because semi-automatic rifles aren’t made to be fired at the cyclic rate they are attempting to achieve.

        The problems of bump stocks are very good reasons not to buy them. That being said, if someone wishes to waste ammunition with a bump stock just for the heck of it, that should be of no concern to anyone else as long as they aren’t injuring anyone.

    rustypaladin in reply to bear. | February 20, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    Except you can make an AR-15 or semi-auto Kalishnikov simulate automatic fire by putting your thumb through the trigger guard, looping it through your belt loop, and firing the weapon by pulling forward on the forward hand guard or barrel shroud. The recoil releases the trigger, but the constant pressure from pulling the weapon forward will keep it firing. Are they going to ban belt loops?

      jakee308 in reply to rustypaladin. | February 20, 2018 at 5:26 pm

      Or fingers? Or many other of the jury rigs that can effect the same action.

      When will people finally get that those intent on crime DO NOT OBEY THE LAW? NO law will stop these shootings.

      Only a proactive effort to prevent them by repealing all NO GUN ZONE LAWS and allowing school employees to be trained and allowed to carry firearms will we begin to promote common sense gun safety.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to rustypaladin. | February 21, 2018 at 4:12 pm

      “simulate automatic fire”

      Actually no, but to know this you would have actually had to have fired a fully automatic weapon and most people have not.

      The simple fact is that no device can give a semi-automatic weapon the cyclic rate of a fully automatic weapon, they just are not built for it. Also, actually controlling a fully automatic weapon takes practice, lots and lots of practice.

        Arminius in reply to Gremlin1974. | February 22, 2018 at 5:27 pm

        Actually commercially-available semi-autos aren’t built to take the rate of fire that even a bump stock can give them. In addition to ruining its accuracy, it makes the rifle more jam prone and can easily overheat the barrel.

        So if in addition to missing your target you enjoy clearing jams and changing barrels (or, if you wish, the entire upper receiver to get that new barrel) go for it.

        Arminius in reply to Gremlin1974. | February 22, 2018 at 5:50 pm

        Oops, I see you already said that. Except for the overheating barrels. But you covered all the really important parts.

        My bad.

buckeyeminuteman | February 20, 2018 at 5:20 pm

I really don’t see the need for anyone to have a bump stock. But we all know what happens when you give the government an inch. The conversation should really be centered around armed security and stronger entry-control points at schools and stronger penalties for existing laws. Instead the media and Democrats see another chance to grab all the guns.

    I think armed guards is coming next. Trump is not finished. He’s continuing his chess moves.

    I really don’t see the need for anyone to own a 140mph sports car, either.

    But many do. And they never break the law or kill anyone with them.

    So, what you or I may approve is just tinkling brass… Like the shower of shells from an AR15 with a bump-stock.

    OleDirtyBarrister in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | February 20, 2018 at 8:18 pm

    What does “need” have to do with a principled discussion of exercising fundamental constitutional rights?

    Do you think that “need” qualification concerns leftists with respect to their judicial fiat rights of abortion, sodomy, or queer marriage? Research indicates that only about 1-5% of abortions are based on a legitimate health threat to the mother. Thus, virtually all of them are entirely discretionary and for convenience. The last thing the immoral left in this country wants is a “need” qualification for their pet rights.

    The Founders determined that the RKBA was important enough that they formed a political consensus to include it in the constitution. That is more than can be said for the judicial fiat rights that leftists value so highly, the proponents of which could not even build a political consensus at the state level to change through a simple legislative majority. And certainly not the level of political consensus required to amend the constitution. They simply get 5 justices to amend it for them.

As long as they don’t go over board (which they tend to do) and wind up banning things that will effectively ban the entire weapon; sure I can agree with that.

Bump stocks are really not efficient and besides there’s ways to do that without a piece of purchased equipment.

Once again their really is no point in banning any particular firearm as even machine guns can be home built. But it’s fine.

It’s when they ignore outright a simple set of actions for prevention (which they claim they all want but somehow only want gun bannings) such as: arming school employees (like Israel does) and putting metal detectors on all doors (like Israel does) and just plain following current law (which they didn’t in this latest case).

But the left never has been rational. I hope Trump doesn’t let them go too far or it will cause more trouble.

Gun owners were cranked up by Obama and the incessant call by the media to ban guns and if it now happens under a GOP majority government all hell WILL break loose.

bump stock does not due that. still one trigger squeeze per round fired.
not a “machine gun” still a semi auto

    Sanddog in reply to dmacleo. | February 20, 2018 at 6:00 pm

    Of course not. But look for a leftwing push for anything that increases the rate of fire. That would include trigger jobs.

    I’m at the point now where they can ban whatever the hell they want but it’s not going to change what I choose to do with my firearms. I have an AR-57 with a binary trigger. It’s staying on regardless of any stupid regs they choose to propose.

      murkyv in reply to Sanddog. | February 20, 2018 at 8:18 pm

      Todays anti gunners would no doubt have been triggered by the 1779 Girandoni air rifle.

      They’d want to hang Lewis and Clark for taking one along and scaring Lizzie Warrens adopted ancestors with it.

Here we go… giving up something without getting something. It may be “tactical” but not “strategic”. This is why a destabilized Administration due to media/political disruption can stumble.

This is a course that reminds me of who was allowed to leave the USSR… only the most trusted or the most threatened by not returning. Let’s face it… only the most “trusted” will eventually be allowed ownership. “Trusted” or “subservient”?

honestly if some idiot was firing at me I would WANT them to have a bump stock. at round #2 they have most likely lost sight picture.
28 rounds up in air ain’t the safest thing but its better than 30 on target as with semi no bump stock.

if the ATF couldn’t figure out how to lawfully ban “bump stocks” under Oboala, they shouldn’t have any more luck trying it with Trump as POTUS.

this is just propaganda BS. if you want to stop school shootings, do what Israel did: arm the staff & train them regularly.

cowards attack soft targets, not hard ones.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to redc1c4. | February 20, 2018 at 10:12 pm

    “do what Israel did: arm the staff & train them regularly.

    cowards attack soft targets, not hard ones.”

    ^^^^This, This, and This again!^^^^^

    I try to explain to people that having armed staff in school isn’t about them actually intervening, it’s about deterrence.

    These cowards don’t go to places where they might catch a bullet in the ass before they can get their rage on.

    When Israel did this in the 70’s I believe there were 1 or 2 attempted school shootings after they armed the staff, both of those ended up with the shooter dead and only minor injuries on the other side. After that, no more real attempts.

      Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | February 21, 2018 at 8:07 am

      Staff at most Israeli schools are not armed. Schools have full-time guards, who are usually the only armed people on the premises. Israel unfortunately has very tight restrictions on gun rights, that would not be tolerated here. Like almost all of the rest of the world, they think we’re the crazy ones for recognizing the RKBA as a basic civil liberty.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | February 21, 2018 at 4:35 pm

        “Schools have full-time guards”

        Correct I didn’t word that very well. But the fact remains that it is the deterrent factor that is the real weapon.

Devices that convert a semi-automatic into an automatic weapon are already illegal. A bump stock can simulate automatic fire but then again, that can be achieved without a bump stock as well. This, like setting the age of purchase for an AR-15 at 21, is pointless, stupid, posturing. There are many semi-automatic rifles chambered in .223 to choose from that aren’t on the AR platform.

This does nothing. ATF has a very particular—and peculiar—definition of “machine gun”. And by that definition, a bump stock isn’t a machine gun, and it doesn’t convert anything else into a machine gun.

“I signed a memorandum directing the Attorney General to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.”

Since no device which is currently legal turns a non-machine gun into a machine gun, there’s nothing to ban.

There are some sneaky doctrines BATF can use to pretend it has authority to regulate non-machine guns, such as “intent” and the concept of “readily converted”. But since both of those (in the case of bump stocks) would only show a potential to make a bump stock, and since a bump stock simply isn’t a machine gun and therefor not regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act, there still remains nothing to regulate no matter how much “intent” and “ready conversion” they pretend to see.

I suspect this is just more Trumpian chopped fish to keep the dancing seals diverted for a while.

    alaskabob in reply to tom_swift. | February 20, 2018 at 7:28 pm

    The wiggle room by the ATR can be huge. A guy is in prison because the ATF could manipulate make his AR fire more than twice with a trigger pull with radically altered ammo… or the judge that ruled that no matter how much money it took if a contraption could make a gun full auto… the gun was a machine gun. Fortunately only some like that are at Bad Attitude Towards Freedom.

    Interesting thought. Don’t know if it’s correct, but interesting.

    Edward in reply to tom_swift. | February 21, 2018 at 9:07 am

    There is nothing peculiar about the definition of an “automatic” weapon. It is an engineering definition which can be defended successfully in court (not that one needs to defend gun control with the current SCOTUS aversion to taking up Second Amendment cases of infringment). One squeeze (cycle) of the trigger mechanism fires one round = semi-automatic. One squeeze of the trigger fires more than one round = automatic. A definition which most Judges, jurors and John Q. Public can understand.

Prohibition is and always will be a stupid “solultion.”

For anyone that has a 3-D printer at home, here are a set of plans for an AR-15 bump-stock:

https://github.com/maduce/fosscad-repo/commits/master/Rifles/AR-15_Bumpfire_Stock_v2-Disruptive_Solutions

The main beneficiary of bump stocks are the ammunition makers. The big losers are the target manufacturers. With a bump stock you can blow through a lot of ammunition while doing little damage to any target.

Never write a law without a purpose. You’ll not be obeyed and you’ll increase contempt for law and order in general.

This law has no purpose save to increase government control and intrusion. That control and intrusion will be celebrated as safety or some other lie by every vapor headed sheep and leftist in the world.

But if your goal is more government control and celebrating nincompoops go ahead and try passing it.

    Edward in reply to forksdad. | February 21, 2018 at 9:10 am

    “This law has no purpose save to increase government control and intrusion.”

    Of course such a law, if proposed and passed, has another purpose. It allows the politicians to pretend they are “doing something”. That it has no practical effect is immaterial for bills (and any resulting statutes) passed for “show”.

This isn’t about bump stocks. It wasn’t used in Florida.
The AR15 is being distorted by liberals to destroy the 2nd Amendment. It isn’t a weapon of war, it preceded the military M16. Heck the M16 shoots 5.56 bullet while most AR’s shoot a .223. While both are about the same size, it’s still in the .22 caliber family which is a small bullet.
This is liberals trying to take over our country using any means they can, legal or not.

    Edward in reply to 4fun. | February 21, 2018 at 9:32 am

    Actually Remington brought out the .223 Remington cartridge as a result of the military adoption of the 5.56x45mm (5.56 NATO) cartridge. Early Springfield Armory testing of what became the 5.56mm started with the .222 Remington case (IIRC). The differences between the two are in the rifle’s chamber and the pressure of the cartridge loading. Much has been written about the different chambering, but AR-15 style rifles having barrels marked .223/5.56, are chambered to make firing either .223 Remington or 5.56mm NATO a safe practice.

    https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2013/3/4/223-remington-vs-556-whats-in-a-name/

Bad guys and Lunatics will find a way to kill you, no matter.
It ain’t about the means.
I been trying all day to put in an order.

I bet they are really good at reducing felt recoil.
Oh, I’d have fun pulling off some triples..

But I am more a precision shooter.

Blazing away would probably beat up my $1,200.00 scope.

Oh, BTW.. the 2nd Amendment wasn’t about hunting.

It was about killing people who severely need it.
In defense of our Liberties, handed down from God.

Automatic fire is only useful when providing cover as part of a maneuver or strategy.

If you want to obtain and maintain the attention of freaks such as BLM all you really need are occasional deer hunters, using bolt action 30.06, .270, 30.30 or the venerable .308 rifles.

One shot. Leave the brass in the chamber. Go home, dispose of or reload the brass and then go to bed.

First of all, the BATF can not legally ban the bump stock. Why? Because it does not cause the weapon to fire automatically. They tried to do the same thing with the SIG SB15 pistol brace and the M855 round. In the second case, the construction of the round could possibly fit the definition of an armor piercing round, as defined under law. However, politics and a lack of clear cut adherence to the armor piercing round definition caused the BATF to decide not to designate it as such. The SIG brace is another matter. The brace itself does not meet the definition of a shoulder stock, IF it is used as designed. However, it can be, and is often, used as a stock. When this happens it fits the legal definition of a shoulder stock. Th old “looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” argument. The BATF decided that as the stock was not designed to be used as a stock, it did not meet the definition in the regulation; unless it was being used as a stock. Place it to your should and THEN it becomes a stock and you have a short barreled rifle. The BATF, no matter how much people love to hate it, is pretty lenient in its regulation making.

Of course, most of its regulations are a violation of the 2nd Amendment. But, that is another story.

    Edward in reply to Mac45. | February 21, 2018 at 10:21 am

    ATF tried to claim the M855 (Green Tip) ammunition fit the definition of “armor piercing” because:
    a) there was a steel component to the tip of the bullet; and,
    b) the rise of AR “handguns” chambered for the .223/5.56mm cartridge combo.

    The claim fell apart legally because the steel in the bullet was not “a projectile, or projectile core” which was constructed entirely of one or more of a list of hard and heavy metals, as required by statute and was not a “…projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun…”.

    The 5.56x45mm M855 bullet had a core of lead, was not larger than .22 caliber and was not designed and intended for use in a handgun. The AR pistols coming to market still did not make the M855 “designed and intended for use in a handgun”. There is also a part of the statute requiring projectiles with 25% or or more of the bullet weight being the jacket to be “armor piercing”, but that requirement applies only to larger than .22 caliber, and the M855 projectile doesn’t meet the 25% jacket requirement either.

      Mac45 in reply to Edward. | February 21, 2018 at 10:59 am

      Those were the arguments which the BATF eventually used to justify NOT classifying the M855 round as an “armor piercing round”. But, a strong case could have been made that the perpetrator tip, in the M855, was analogous to a core. Here is the pertinent part of 18 US Code 192″

      “(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
      (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.”

      Notice the word OR, at the end of clause (i).
      It can be reasonably argued the perpetrator tip on the M855 meets the definition under section (i)of a “core” made entirely of one of the enumerated metals, steel. We already know that the bullet was designed to be “armor piercing” as that was part of the design specifications. And, with the introduction of the AR-15 pistol, it was chamberable in a pistol. This could result in it being banned for sale in the US. However, the use of AR-15 pistols was so low and the use of M855 rounds, in rifles, so high, and the fact that a 5.56x45mm M193 round was as effective at piercing body armor, when fired from the AR-15 pistol, as the M855, allowed politics [or possibly common sense] to come into play and the BATF decided it was not worth it to enact the ban and attempt to defend it in court.

Didn’t Trump promise to eliminate three existing regulations for every new regulation?

Anybody who thinks the florida murderer passed the FBI’s scrutiny due to the FBIs incompetence, think again: these killings were the best thing to happen to tbe swamp in years.

The swamp needs chaos so it can seize power at a low point in our society.

Soros and his 18 billion are hard at work.

That toad McConnell and that other toad ryan are on board – if only by their acquiesence.

Bucky Barkingham | February 21, 2018 at 7:51 am

When bump-stocks are outlawed only outlaws will have bump-stocks. They will get my bump-stock when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. Bump-stocks don’t kill people – people kill people.

Devices that can turn legal weapons into machine guns are illegal, and have been since 1934. The definition of “automatic-like” weapons that is mentioned is non-specific nonsense, and would open the door to banning anything they like.

Trump needs better advice. The gang of leftists and establishment Republicans he’s surrounded himself with are directing him toward bad decisions in many areas. If he doesn’t pull back from this, and get rid of most of the people he relies on for information and advice, it will cost him the next election.

Have a shooting, limit 2nd Amendment. Have another shooting, limit 2nd Amendment again. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat, ad infinitum.

Bump-stocks this time, magazines next time, nobody needs this, nobody needs that. . Of course, we’re all reasonable men, what’s one more compromise? Well, all reasonable compromises were exceeded in 1934, now it is just take, take and take.

It this measure stops the anthropomorphization (e.g. agency) of guns, then it will be positive progress, and a conservation of principles.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend