Kentucky Armory Club

Let me try to break this down Barney-style.

I do not like Hillary Clinton. She is a pathological liar lacking ethical standards. I did not—and would not ever—vote for her.

But I will not support someone just because they’re “not Hillary.” Sadly, Trump-lovers will use “Would you rather have Hillary?” to excuse the most egregious behavior by our Bloviator-in-Chief.

If Obama had directed the DOJ to violate the Constitution we’d be looking around for torches and pitchforks. But we’ll let Trump piss on our heads and pretend it’s raining

Let me break it back to you Sesame Street style for you:
The Letter "C"
We had no better CHOICE.
Unicorns and flying pigs do not exist.


Violating the constitution by banning a device and not a firearm? Um, okay.
Obama banned ammunition, barrels and a few other items.
Where was your outrage then?

This isn’t about the last election. I don’t care who you voted for. And to answer your question, my outrage is where it has always been.

When Obama (who I voted for in 2008–but not 2012) imposed a tax on breathing (AKA Obamacare) I was outraged. When George W. Bush (who I voted for) decided to invade Iraq for no good reason I was outraged. My ego isn’t tied to which politician I voted for or against.

The fact that Hillary Clinton sucks has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the person who actually *is* the president of the United States directed a department within the executive branch to change a law.

Anybody who is OK with this but says they love the Constitution is delusional. If we let Trump set this precedent can you imagine how it could be used by an anti-gun president in the future? If bump stocks are machine guns, this logic can be applied to any modification that changes/improves trigger function. It’s really not a far stretch to bring large capacity magazines (and other parts) into the “machine gun component” category. This is the “Gun Control Watch” thread, after all.

I’ll ask you this question: you were pissed when Obama did stupid shit, but where is your outrage now? Is there *anything* Trump could do that would make you upset, or is what he said about murdering someone in the street and getting away with it true?

Bump stocks were a work around the wording of Hughes amendment and were only legal due to a letter from the ATF and to be honest, and I've said this before, I was totally amazed they were allowed in the first place. The question in play right now is whether or not the Hughes A apples to to them. This is not a constitutional question but a question of whether or not an existing law applies to them. If it does then they're illegal, if not they're legal. Now if you want to start an augment on whether or not the Hughes A is constitutional then have had it. Trump isn't responsible for the Hughes and until it's repealed he has to obey it. Or would you feel better if he started picking and choosing, like Obama, what laws he feels like obeying.

Frailer wrote:When Obama (who I voted for in 2008–but not 2012) imposed a tax on breathing (AKA Obamacare) I was outraged.

He didn't exactly make it secret that was what he wanted BEFORE the 2008 election

WLJ wrote:Bump stocks were a work around the wording of Hughes amendment and were only legal due to a letter from the ATF and to be honest, and I've said this before, I was totally amazed they were allowed in the first place. The question in play right now is whether or not the Hughes A apples to to them. This is not a constitutional question but a question of whether or not an existing law applies to them. If it does then they're illegal, if not they're legal. Now if you want to start an augment on whether or not the Hughes A is constitutional then have had it. Trump isn't responsible for the Hughes and until it's repealed he has to obey it. Or would you feel better if he started picking and choosing, like Obama, what laws he feels like obeying.

The Hughes Amendment is irrelevant. The applicable statute is the 1934 NFA, which defines “machine gun.” Bump stocks are legal because they do not meet that definition. The ATF letter you mention doesn’t make them legal—it merely confirms the fact that they are.

The constitutional question is whether the executive branch can unilaterally make something that is legal illegal without congressional involvement. To which I say, “hell no.”

If this still doesn’t bother you, then consider the fact that any gun that can be bump fired is now a machine gun. If you can’t imagine this being abused by an overzealous leftist DA in an effort to ban all semi-autos then you need to get your tinfoil hat re-sized.

Hughes, NFA, doesn't matter, the point is the same.

The ATF letter you mention doesn’t make them legal—it merely confirms the fact that they are.

You're splitting hairs here, in effect by confirming they are legal is making them legal in this case.

If you think the ATF has the power to “make things legal (or illegal),” then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

If this *is* true, then God help us.

Frailer wrote:If you think the ATF has the power to “make things legal (or illegal),” then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

If this *is* true, then God help us.

In EFFECT by deciding that the NFA and/or Hughes A didn't apply to bump stocks they most certainly did.
Govt agencies and judges make these kind of decisions every day on whether or not a law apples. If you don't like it take it up with the courts.

Heck, police do it on the fly

So, to summarize, I am silly (or stupid) to be concerned about this?

Frailer wrote:So, to summarize, I am silly (or stupid) to be concerned about this?

I think you're going after the wrong target.
The problem is not so much whether or not Trump and/or the ATF thinks the NFA/Hughes applies to bump stocks the problem is the fact the NFA and Hughes exist in the first place.
NFA and Hughes are law whether you like it or not and it's the executive branch's job to enforce the law.
Get the the law changed if you don't like it.

Frailer wrote: I’ll ask you this question: you were pissed when Obama did stupid shit, but where is your outrage now? Is there *anything* Trump could do that would make you upset, or is what he said about murdering someone in the street and getting away with it true?

I was a Rand supporter from the start of 2015. But to answer about the Bump Stock, no, I'm not happy about the banning but with everything that had happened in a short amount of time, the liberal base wanted a sacrifice and Trump gave them the bumpstock. That was enough to get them to STFU and move on which wasn't great for the 2nd Amendment, but it was better than losing something or anything like a magazine or firearm ban.

The thing I do like about Trump is that he has kept to his promises on pretty much everything unlike any president that came before him in my lifetime.
Is he presidential and well mannered? No, that does get on my nerves especially his Tweets but he is what this country needed at the present time. Our job #'s are up, countries outside of here are no longer taking advantage of Clinton and Bush era style NAFTA and other trade that rapes the US of tax dollars and incentives. NATO is no longer getting a free ride from Europe and other countries that have abused this set up which is now outdated and needs to be extinguished. And hopefully a wall along with increased manpower on the southern border to snuff out everything from drugs to people who don't belong here or deserve to belong here.
There has not been a 2A friendly President in my lifetime and there will probably never be. There used to be moderate democrats that stood with the NRA and gun rights. Now there aren't any and if there is, they are not risking their namesake to take a stand.
Republicans are slowly edging this same way too. Guns and gun culture in the US have became more taboo and have taken a negative turn over the past 30 years.
I cannot name one President that has been 2A friendly since I have been born. Either sacrifice a finger or toe, or lose an arm or a leg. That has been the norm for gun owners over my lifetime.

My sincere thanks for a well-reasoned response to my question.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Northeast Washington Police Chief Says He Won’t Enforce I-1639 Gun Control Restrictions
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... trictions/

[img]//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201811 ... 4a3ed1.jpg[/img]

Toddstang wrote:Nope.

Imagine if all the mass shootings happened on her watch.

And then imagine a house and or senate led by Democrats.

Hitlary said before 2016 that she wanted ALL "assault weapons" banned. Semi-Auto's vs. a bumpstock (That you probably don't even own): Take the bumpstock any day of the week.

I never forgot about the 93 AWB. Seems that a Clinton was behind that.

If you're fooled by Hitlary, I'd say you have probably been fooled by a tranny a time or two.

Lol

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

https://www.nraila.org/articlesw/201809 ... gun-rights

levi-s-teams-with-billionaire-michael-bloomberg-to-attack-gun-rights

On September 4th, Levi’s CEO Chip Bergh announced that the San Francisco-based clothing manufacturer (which also owns Dockers) would openly advocate for gun control. As part of this campaign, the company will donate more than $1 million to radical anti-gun groups, including Michael Bloomberg front-group Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords, formerly Americans for Responsible Solutions and the Legal Community Against Violence. The company will also match employee donations to these groups and is encouraging its staff to devote their time to anti-gun activism.

Employees donations?
Levi's moved all their factories out of the US.

Yep. They did. I guess I'll burn my last pair of Levi's.

I haven’t purchased a single item of Levi’s/Docker’s, or anything they make, since back in the 90’s when they stopped giving to the BSA. They made that left turn a lonnnggggg time ago. They can keep their shit.

Another one of those your 10/22 is an assault weapon proposals this time in FL

Two Proposed Florida Ballot Measures Would Require Registration, Ban Most Semi-Automatic Firearms
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... -firearms/

Okay guys, anything else that needs to be said?
The 90 days part may or not be CNN BS. We shall see

President Donald Trump is expected to announce that he will be signing a ban on bump stocks that gives Americans 90 days to hand them over or otherwise dispose of them.

CNN reports that Trump is now preparing to sign the ban and it will outlaw the firearm accessories without a grandfathering option. CNN quotes a source that indicates “members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018 ... n-them-in/