I did answer your question. In fact, you answered your own question when you said, “a secondary mechanism is actually doing all the work for you”. You aren’t pulling the trigger each time a round is fired, are you? A secondary mechanism is actually doing all the work for you.
I still agree with the NRA’s position that the current administration’s BATFE should regulate bump stock-type devices differently/more heavily than what was decided under Obama’s Fast & Furious BATFE.
So do you believe a gun fitted with a bump stock should be classed as a fully automatic weapon?
And why do I suspect you’re going to avoid a yes/no answer, and again segue onto what you think Obama should have done?
Oh. So the bump stock was Obama’s fault. Got it.
How far down the improvised scale could we hope to regulate or control devices? A stick screwed to a wooden base? A rubber band?
Outlawing bump stocks will lead to outlawing rubber bands. Got it.
Two can play the slippery-slope game. Why was that 9-year old arrested for toting a gun? Children aren’t human and shouldn’t be allowed to stand their ground? And why can’t I buy surface-to-air missiles for my own well-regulated militia? My enemies are persistent. The Second Amendment means I should also be able to buy flame-throwers, landmines, cluster bombs and nerve gas if I can afford them.
You really are quite fond of the Chewbacca defence, aren’t you lumpy? Let me demonstrate what answering a question looks like, just so you can see:
q) How far down the improvised scale could we hope to regulate or control devices? A stick screwed to a wooden base? A rubber band?
a) No, I do not think we should regulate sticks screwed to wooden bases or rubber bands. I think devices should be regulated at a point defined by legislature, usually based upon a balance of the potential that device has for harming others weighed against the inconvenience regulations would cause users. I think a good example of such considered regulation would be the system enacted in some countries where you cannot buy a car without showing you have insurance.
Do you see how that works? You ask something, and I answer the question you actually asked, as succinctly as possible while also covering your entire question. So, for example, I don’t just answer the specific examples of a stick or rubber band, but also I don’t go go off on a non sequitur about previous governments wrongdoings.
Why not have try that approach out. I’ll even remind you what the question was:
“do you believe a gun fitted with a bump stock should be classed as a fully automatic weapon?”
Hahahaha. No, you don’t “got it”. It was clearly a decision by Obama’s Fast & Furious BATFE.
So Obama was not a gun-grabber, right?
What Obama should have done? I doubt that milquetoast Obama had/has the skillset to make such a decision.
I believe the classification of bump stock-type modifications should be readdressed by the BATFE. And that the classification should be raised.
I do question why the Obama’s Fast and Furious BATFE classified a device where “a secondary mechanism is actually doing all the work for you” wouldn’t have been classified differently than it was. What were they thinking? What were they hoping for?
I would classify Obama as an incompetent gun-grabber.
Then why was everyone so paranoid?
Were you perhaps unaware that a stick screwed to a wooden base or even a lowly rubber band, CAN assist the gun owner in bump firing? I asked what I thought was a legitimate question, which I’ll try to paraphrase for your edification: what sort of non-commercial improvised “gun hacks” do you think could possibly be addressed by bans?
Doorhinge wrote:“a secondary mechanism is actually doing all the work for you”. You aren’t pulling the trigger each time a round is fired, are you? A secondary mechanism is actually doing all the work for you."
With Soviet bump stock, trigger pulls YOU. (Sorry, couldn’t help myself.)
Haven’t been to america lately, have you?
T’ain’t no society anymo’, Bub, jus’ anarchie.
No matter. As predicted, the story has pretty much been forgotten.
Not forgotten, just one of many, alas. The Onion says it best:
Nation Schedules Recurring Monthly Benefit Concert To Streamline Tragedy Response Process
I, for one, was NOT aware of that! Gee whiz! I guess you’ve just proved that only gunnists should be allowed to have an opinion on gun-related matters.
As I’ve said, I’ve no dog in the gun-control debate. Part of me hopes you gunnists have as many guns as possible so you can kill each other and humanity will evolve à la Darwin.
OTOH, if only certified NON-gun owners were allowed to buy rubber bands it wouldn’t bother me much! Anything to reduce Guns Guns Guns!! to utter farce would appeal since I regard all you gunnists as cowardly and hateful cretins.
Geez, and I thought I was under stress lately…
So, is it time to talk about gun control yet? We were told that it was “too soon” earlier. :rolleyes: