Nothing says what "like" is - it could be as you inferred or it could be as the previous ATF finding reported, that the bump stock is not "like" a machine gun. If something allows for a semi-automatic rifle to fire 5 shots in 1 second, is that "like" a machine gun even if the trigger is pulled every time?
If the only purpose is to kill people, why were tens of thousands sold with no deaths prior to Vegas? Sometimes target shooting doesn't involve precision. What other things do you want to ban?
Why would they be afraid of new gun legislation since the Republicans hold the Senate? If the NRA is just a mouthpiece for the gun industry, wouldn't they want Congress to take up new gun legislation to drive Obama-level sales volumes?
I understand that, but legally it doesn’t matter. The ATF has no authority to redefine the law. They can not ban bump stocks. This will be overturned as soon as it hits the first court.
Sure I can. The ATF determined that bump stocks were legal on multiple occasions. The NRA then asked the ATF to revisit their determination which they subsequently did at the direction of the POTUS, resulting in a ban on bump stocks. That makes the NRA complicit.
The ATF did not re-examine their findings based upon anything that the NRA said. They don't take their orders from the NRA. Their orders come from the White House.
You should ask the NRA that because that was their supposed reasoning for asking the ATF to review the regulation. Of course you and I both know that it's BS as you pointed out but the NRA expects you to believe it anyway.
Why do you think that the NRA wouldn't have expected the ATF to return the same answer they had already presented regarding bump stocks? Were you surprised when the ATF published their reversal? Do you think that came from the NRA request or from Trump's claim that he would ban bump stocks?
Right, the largest gun rights lobby in the country asking the ATF to review the legality of a firearm related product carries no weight whatsoever. /s Stop being a dupe.
Personally, I think a lot of people who are now facing felony charges for having bump stocks decided to heck with it and they've gone ahead and acquired true select-fire arms.
Is this offered as cover for the fact all you have is "the NRA took the position that some regulation of bump stocks might be in order, so they are responsible for the bump-stock ban". Can anyone say non sequitur?
"the NRA took the position that some regulation of bump stocks might be in order" --TOG 6 Keep reading that to yourself over and over until you get it.
I find it ironic that bump stocks were approved during the Obama administration and are being banned during the Trump administration
From a legal standpoint, based on existing federal legislation and definitions, it does not matter how fast a firearm can be repeatedly discharged, as it changes absolutely nothing.
Bump stocks are kind of dumb and have now been associated with 58 or so deaths. Golf is dumber and far more dangerous. Why isn’t there a thread about banning golf. It’s only purpose is to kill and injure participants and spectators.
Even more ironic is the fact that they were first banned under Bush II. Do we have some sort of conspiracy going on here? Approved under a Democratic President and banned by Republican Presidents on either end of that Democrats Presidency.
It almost as if you didn't read my post The NRA took the position that some regulation of bump stocks might be in order, so, according to you, they are responsible for the bump-stock ban. Can anyone say non sequitur? Wait.. maybe you don' t know what non sequitur means....? Here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non sequitur
The NRA is complicit in the implementation of these new regulations. That is irrefutable. They're condemned by their own words. No amount of blathering on your end will change that. Why do you choose to be wrong?
