Bump Stockas DTS

[Pertinacious Tom]

I think I was more than clear about the topic. And have been long before the orangeman ever came on the scene.

I'd like to go back and explore this some more, because there's an aspect that I don't think you've mentioned previously.

Naturally, most ordinary owners of bump stocka did not buy into the idea that they're mass murderers and turn over their property. Last I heard, zero had been boughtback without compensation so far.

What was boughtback without compensation was hundreds of thousands of dollars in inventory owned by businesses who relied on Obama and Feinstein and the ATF being repeatedly right about what the law said. And they were right.

I know you've said you approve of Trump grabbing the legislative power and banning bump stocka. Admittedly, the authoritarian form of government is more efficient. I think it has little else to offer.

But do you approve of the resulting uncompensated buyback of property from businesses who thought they were complying with the law?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Feinstein on Bump Stocka: Legislation is the Only Answer

Feb 20 2018​

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s comments on bump stocks:

“I’m glad President Trump finally understands that bump stocks should be illegal. Now he needs to follow through with action and support our bill to ban these deadly devices.

“The ATF currently lacks authority under the law to ban bump stocks. The agency made this clear in a 2013 letter to Congress, writing that ‘stocks of this type are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes.’ The ATF director said the same thing to police chiefs a few months ago, which they confirmed in an open Judiciary Committee hearing.

“If ATF tries to ban these devices after admitting repeatedly that it lacks the authority to do so, that process could be tied up in court for years, and that would mean bump stocks would continue to be sold. Legislation is the only answer.

“Words are one thing, Mr. President, but we need meaningful action. If you want these devices off the street, call congressional Republicans and tell them to stop blocking our bill.”

You like this post, @jocal505?

Really? Shortly after Feinstein (correctly) said that Congress, not the President, should change the law, the President completely disrespected her statement, usurped her power, and unilaterally changed the law.

Liking what she said before means you join me in opposing Trump's power grab. It's rare that we agree on gun bans and confiscation programs, so I just want to confirm: are you really saying that Trump was wrong to ban and confiscate bump stocka?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Feinstein Statement on Regulation to Ban Bump Stocka

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today issued the following statement on the Justice Department’s regulation to ban bump stocks:

“Until today, the ATF has consistently stated that bump stocks could not be banned through regulation because they do not fall under the legal definition of a machine gun.

“Now, the department has done an about face, claiming that bump stocks do fall under the legal definition of a machine gun and it can ban them through regulations. The fact that ATF said as recently as April 2017 that it lacks this authority gives the gun lobby and its allies even more reason to file a lawsuit to block the regulations.

“Unbelievably, the regulation hinges on a dubious analysis claiming that bumping the trigger is not the same as pulling it. The gun lobby and manufacturers will have a field day with this reasoning. What’s more, the regulation does not ban all devices that accelerate a semi-automatic weapons rate of fire to that of a machine gun.

“Both Justice Department and ATF lawyers know that legislation is the only way to ban bump stocks. The law has not changed since 1986, and it must be amended to cover bump stocks and other dangerous devices like trigger cranks. Our bill does this—the regulation does not.”

Bumping a trigger sure seems to have the same result as pulling it, so I can see how she would be confused.

But, of course, @Olsonist will be along shortly to explain why his boy Trump knows better.

 

[jocal505]

You like this post, @jocal505?

Really? Shortly after Feinstein (correctly) said that Congress, not the President, should change the law, the President completely disrespected her statement, usurped her power, and unilaterally changed the law.

Liking what she said before means you join me in opposing Trump's power grab. It's rare that we agree on gun bans and confiscation programs, so I just want to confirm: are you really saying that Trump was wrong to ban and confiscate bump stocka?

too dizzy for me bump stockas bad

 

[veni vidi vici]

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Nincomcouping can result in suboptimal outcomes. Hi Tom!

Geez, man, get over it. Obama and I are right and your boy Trump is wrong.

Just admit it and this obsession with me may fade away. Or keep endlessly obsessing because you know I'm right but can't admit it because Trump did something gungrabby and, well, TeamD!

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Who made you Tom?

It's really a creepy obsession.

Admitting that Obama and I are right and your boy Trump was wrong, even though he did something gungrabby, might help you to overcome this mental illness.

Contrary to TeamD doctrine, everything gungrabby isn't good.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Tom will be along shortly to tell us that Caldwell is just a good ol' nincomcouper, never meanin' no harm.

Creepier every day.

Obama and I are still right. You and Trump are still wrong. You still can't admit it because Trump did something gungrabby and, well, TeamD!

 

[jocal505]

Pertinacious Tom​

Yesterday at 2:30 AM

Who made you Tom?

It's really a creepy obsession.

Lewis Powell or Leonard Leo must have made a Tom or two. Yet Tom says he's never heard of them.



Dogballs, if bugging you is an obsession, maybe Mr. Olsonist is not alone. But it could also be that you are a worthy target. Low hanging fruit, just cruising for a bruising.

Let's review. IMO you troll away for the attention, often weaponizing annoyance and half-baked ideas, while smarmy... then the reaction becomes "gossip." You are the victim here, eh?

Not in my book: I think you lead with your chin. I think your bit fluctuates between poor civics, and distasteful character. You are the gift that keeps giving, devoid of any learning curve, while very impressed with your dickhead self, for some reason.com. I love ten years of this shit:

​

THE MELANIN FILES​

Search>Melanin>Tom Dogballs Ray​

​

Tom's Many Melanins, (Eighteen total)​

2012 one melanin​

2013 zero​

2014 one​

2015 three​

2016 two​

2017 zero​

2018 four​

2019 two​

2020 one ​

2021 two​

2022 one​

2023 one (Race Baiter Alert #5 for 2023)​

And allow me to add that I think that shit like Citizens United and Heller and ALEC and CATO are racist, as racist as fuck, going by the standard and familiar Dogballs vocabulary, style, & logic.

 

[badlatitude]

I think I am going to make a badge showing dead kids for Congress.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Hysterics

? why are you so upset ? , if you don't like the AR pin,

, a quick search finds a SCAR 17 pin


$13 bucks on eday

lighten up

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Tom will be along shortly to tell us that corporations is people too. So when his boy Shitstain doled out free money to hard working corporations, his boy was really giving it to persons of the clay, persons of the New West, you know, corporations. Well, that and Hillary.

Creepier every day, but you still won't denounce Trump's gungrabbiness because you're TeamD and thus can't say anything bad about any gungrabbiness.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The NRA Has Lost Over a Million Members Since Corruption Allegations Surfaced

The National Rifle Association keeps shrinking.

thereload.com

Tom, Wayne needs your money for real! Won't you help Wayne help Wayne in his time of need?

Donate | NRA

Every day, NRA is on the frontlines mounting an unrelenting, 24/7 defense of your Second Amendment freedoms. But our strength to fight and win comes from you. Please give to NRA.

donate.nra.org

The decline is likely due to the NRA backing Trump and then the one action he took WRT guns proved that your boy Trump is actually WORSE for gun rights than my boy Obama.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Tom's boy Rand voted with his other boy Shitstain 100% of time on impeachment conviction votes. Mittens was only 50%. Rand was also Shitstain's mailboy for his letter to Putin.

Creepier and creepier.

I mentioned Senator Collins too, but you're totally triggered by the fact that Obama and I are right and you and Shitstain are wrong that you just can't let it go.

You won't be able to have any peace or stop creepily stalking me until you just grow a spine and admit it. Obama and I are right. You and your boy shitstain are wrong. Yes, even if he did something gungrabby and even though TeamD!

 

[MR.CLEAN]

That's not stalking, Tom. Are you feeling paranoid?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

That's not stalking, Tom. Are you feeling paranoid?

Why do you care?

More on topic, do you agree with Obama and me or Trump and Olsonist about whether the President can simply reinterpret laws to say things they do not say and thereby grab power?

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Why do you care?

I like to correct untrue statements when convenient for me.

More on topic, do you agree with Obama and me or Trump and Olsonist about whether the President can simply reinterpret laws to say things they do not say and thereby grab power?

I tend not to form my beliefs based on the identity of any particular speaker. Identity is helpful to establish credibility, and once credible, I consider the substance of the argument. That being said, your question is confusing and poorly formed. if you are in fact asking whether the President is permitted to 'reinterpret laws to say things they do not and thereby grab power', my response is that your question is hot garbage because it states both an argument and a conclusion.

In case you meant to ask a logical question like "What is the remedy against an Executive Branch that interprets laws incorrectly?", the answer is the "Judicial Branch".

Hope this clears it up.

 

[veni vidi vici]

I like to correct untrue statements when convenient for me.


I tend not to form my beliefs based on the identity of any particular speaker. Identity is helpful to establish credibility, and once credible, I consider the substance of the argument. That being said, your question is confusing and poorly formed. if you are in fact asking whether the President is permitted to 'reinterpret laws to say things they do not and thereby grab power', my response is that your question is hot garbage because it states both an argument and a conclusion.

In case you meant to ask a logical question like "What is the remedy against an Executive Branch that interprets laws incorrectly?", the answer is the "Judicial Branch".

Hope this clears it up.

There is some sweet irony in there 🙈

 

[MR.CLEAN]

How so?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

How so?

He might be talking about the obstinate refusal to correct your own mistake for months until I finally hounded you into it on about the tenth try.

So you like to correct untrue statements when convenient, unless they were made by you, then you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing it.