Will this election also be decided by the perverse American fetish for GUNS?

In all seriousness maybe we should take it easy on him. I mean it may not be entirely his fault that he’s a moron. Morons are people too.


Sub. Short for sub-forum.

Which premise? I was alluding to stopping a central government from gaining too much weight and authority. It is necessary to have a small central government and military, just not desirable to have it too large where it eliminates the checks and balances given to it by states having at least an inkling of sovereignty and self governance. Government overreach is not desirable in any circumstance. Civilian possession of firearms is a huge liability for a government attempting this potential overreaching.

Never tried before, yet successful and a glimmer of hope for those who in the past fled governments that disarmed and destroyed so many of their own population outright.

That is fair. The other issue with them is the rudimentary mechanical design, it doesn’t achieve anything close to fully Auto capability on a semi auto. It may just be more favorable than a person without a bump stock who is actually targeting center mass on people. I am of course speculating that last statement, but A bump stock is essentially a “spray and pray” device due to the end user losing so much control. It is essentially using your shoulder to pull the trigger, now top that with movement. Garbage accuracy. Besides anyone with a pair of jeans can hip fire it with their thumb in a belt loop and get the same repeating action a bump stock provides.

You know, I understand hearing “state governments are awesome, federal governments are bad” from state-level politicians, but it doesn’t really make sense from anybody else.

Rhode Island is 1,212 square miles and has a population of about 1 million.
Texas is 268,597 square miles and has a population of about 28 million.
The US is 3,797,000 square miles and has a population of about 327 million.

From Rhode Island’s perspective Texas is a bigger country than the US is from Texas’s perspective. So if Texas can be considered a reasonably-sized government, why can’t the US? Or contrariwise, if the federal government is too big to succeed, how come Texas is acceptable? They’re both huge compared to a state.

Is “ilk” a race now?

I think it’s a species, like horsi and diir.

And yet after 260+ years of application, not a single advanced country is rushing to join us in our freedoms.

Kinda like health insurance. They ain’t emulating America there either, eh buddy? Guns and private health insurance to pay for gunshot wounds, the true Pioneer Spirit!

Isolation. The state has its own borders and laws and statutes, you can leave and go to another state. The centralized (Federal) government (more of a misnomer) can have itself distributed throughout the states. I would say parasitic but that may be hyperbolic and fantastic to say.

Seems to me that the Constitution, a framework for the implementation of policy, has been used… wrongly… in the regulation of three actual physical objects:


We realized our mistake on two of them - banned slaves, and allowed alcohol. There is nothing which states the 2nd amendment’s treatment towards guns is any more special than the original documents treatment of slaves, right?

Some emulation has succeeded for sure. I do however agree with you on the health care debacle.

Until Texas invades Louisiana because oil.

So… A bump stock is a machine gun that does not operate like a machine gun. But since it is a machine gun, they have been grabbed. Even though they are not machine guns.

OK then.

(I’ll just assume you’re talking to me.)

You could (and should) say the same thing about counties and cities. States are parasitic entities that insinuate themselves and leech off them! Counties should seize their freedom and rebel! Viva la revolution!

In actual fact we’re just talking about organizational units of government. There’s nothing magical about states that makes their size of government better than any other (particularly since their sizes vary so widely). The only reason we give the states even the slightest bit of attention is because of historical reasons, and because those historical reasons led to organizational structures that are burned into our federal constitution. (Which incidentally means that the only reason you know what a state is is because the federal government doggedly continues to pretend they matter.)

So states (in the american usage of the term) continue to exist only because the federal government persists in recognizing them - not because states or state-sized governments are somehow better.

Yes I was talking to you. My apologies for forgetting the reply quote.

I see your point but the difference is that framers suggested that government (Federal, centralized etc.) Was not to be trusted and is to be put in question. It was a defining characteristic of the foundation of the United States and the Second Amendment is to reinforce that notion.

If the trigger was pulling itself, then it would take no skill to operate the bump stock.

What is actually happening is that the shooter is pushing forward with the supporting arm which pulls the trigger into the trigger finger.

Doing this would have made the gun into a machine gun by the BATFE definition prior to the bump stock ban.

It was black and white until someone decided it was not.

On that I agree. That is why the vast majority of machine gun and other firearm ownrrs are not killing anyone with their guns.

If they were plenty lethal enough then the M-1 Garand (invented in 1930) and other semi or full autos would not have been developed.

I will only agree with the part about slavery, it’s abhorrent and and contradictory to the rest of the Constitution and a person’s right to liberty. Alcohol and Firearms do not even belong in the same thought bubble. No comparison whatsoever. I personally do not like alcohol and think it also causes a lot of unnecessary death and destruction just as some may view firearms as having, but in and of themselves neither are immoral, they are property. I cannot rescind or eliminate someone elses rights or property because I do not like some of the effects it has and when the majority are responsible with their property. All that being said, Slavery absolutely has no excuse or reason to exist and never has. People are not property. People should own their government as an entity and not the other way around. People can not own other people.