View Single Post
  #56  
Old 07-12-2019, 05:02 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Do you similarly believe that the FDA or the EPA should not be able to ban substances in food or water supplies?
Major case of apples and oranges on your part.

If the FDA banned a food that it deemed safe simply on the whim of the President, and then consumption or possession of such food became a serious criminal offense, damn straight Iíd oppose that.

What the BATFE did was make a device fit a definition that it doesnít, simply because Trump pressured them to. Previously, after much research, the same agency steadfastly maintained such devices did not fit the definition of machine guns. It is the manner in which this regulation took place that should frighten the living hell out of us.

What happened is not the equivalent of the FDA learning that a previously approved food was found to have toxic side effects. After being approved bump stocks did not change in function, and the definition of automatic weapons did not change. The bureau made the devices fit a definition that they actually donít fit only because the President insisted. This goes way beyond the scope of being a regulatory agency and more to the path of tyranny.

If congress had changed the definition of automatic weapons to one that somehow fit the function of what a bump stock does, then the bureau may have been within its rights to do what they did. But that didnít happen, did it?

Back to the OP, if this type of ban on a lump of plastic can happen so easily, what is to stop such a thing from happening to ammunition?