TinMan on Twitter thinks I work for firearms/ammunition manufacturers, since that’s the only possible reason I could defend constitutionally protect human/civil rights.
All of you fuckers are acting on behalf of manufacturers. People don’t need bumpstocks but if they don’t have them they’ll use less ammo. Bottom line hit. Rats.
I wish they’d pay me. My “income,” such as it is, is insufficient to even paying my ISP bill.
TinMan objects to bump-fire stocks, and professes to believe that only an industry shill would think banning them is a bad idea. In hopes that he was merely uneducated on the subject, I provided a collection of explanatory links.
He either ignored it.
Rather than futilely attempt to make my points in a flurry of abbreviated-to-a-state-of-nonsense, I’ll respond here, and tweet the link to him.
Ammunition and bumpstocks advocacy is not Human Rights. Play it how you want.
But the possession and responsible use is, as explained in the Bill of Rights, and elaborated on by courts all the way up to and including SCOTUS.
But, as TinHead would have know if he’d read and attempted to comprehend the source links I gave him, the issue isn’t bump-fire stocks, ammunition or even semi-automatic firearms. It is rights. And sanity.
TL;DR, TinBrain: By fiat, Trump changed law written by Congress to arbitrarily ban something. It was bump-fire stocks this time. Maybe next time it will be designating the Democratic National Committee a terrorist organization.
In the case of bump-fire stocks, he did it by shifting the Congressionally mandated definition of “function of the trigger” to finger. Fingers are now triggers.
What’s worse, if you aren’t moving your finger, it’s an automatic trigger, which under current ATF rules makes your finger a machinegun.
If Trump can declare, without legislation, your finger to be a machinegun, he can declare Tesla electric cars to be main battle tanks (but I don’t want to give Musk any more weird ideas).
If this precedent stands, there is nothing a president cannot do by fiat, no matter how irrational. He can declare anything to be anything else. Ban anything. (And for the Republicans out there: Kamala Harris is already promising to use Trump’s bump-fire precedent to impose more gun control by fiat.)
Hmm… Let’s say Trump doesn’t like GM closing plants and moving jobs out of the country. He declares GM to be a government agency and takes over. (Or Kamala Harris similarly nationalizes everything to impose the Green Raw Deal.)
Or he might redefine “particulate emissions” to be “fairy dust” and gut federal pollution standards. Or a Dem president might declare plant food to be a world-destroying poisonous ga… oh. Wait. A Dem president already did that.
And it’s very clear that you use the term “human rights” in the most flagrant way possible.
I use “human/civil rights” in a manner consistent with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, centuries of jurisprudence, and sanity.
For instance, the Declaration of Independence mentions a right to “life.” That implies a right to protect one’s life. Which in turn implies a right to defense, security as mentioned in the Bill of Rights (please note that in HELLER SCOTUS stated that outright). Firearms are an effective means of self defense.
Why do you need to fire any more rapidly than a current semi-auto or full auto weapon allows you to? For.. Fun? Do you need not only to shoot but eviscerate your deer? Is it not sensible that people are protected from this type of weapon? WTF do you want???
Tinny is still stuck on OMG! Shoot fast! Who needs to shoot fast?! Still hasn’t caught up the whole rights and reality thing.
And apparently he thinks bump-fire stocks not only allow you to fire faster than a semi-auto (they don’t; that is physically impossible, and is another part of the precedent of lying), but faster than an actual machinegun.
Perhaps — as I sarcastically suggested — he is a paid Bloomberg shill.