It means exactly what I think it means. That there needs to be a certain bare-minimum level of experience and expertise, ie: training, and not just running out to the Ye Olde Walmarte.
I'm saying that a part of the constitution doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.
So what exactly happened to their being untrustworthy mindless black robed pawns to social engineering, Mr Consistency? Their decision at first might have seemed like a good idea, and I've certainly benefited from it, but it has, and continues to lead to a mountain of dead Americans, so as a responsible gun owner I find their judgement needs to be reviewed. Problem is it won't because even though even you understand the intent was changed you're going to pretend that "well regulated" was just pretty words that meant nothing all along.
And the Supreme Court agrees with me, and not with you.
Because it doesn't address the issue.
Slowing escalation only works if you're working towards deescalation. In other words: Talking about giving heavier boots to people living near landmine fields and patting yourself on the back for a job well done saving lives purposefully ignores the problem while pretending to address it.
Is there a point to be made here?
It can't be all or nothing since "your" suggestion starts at nothing and offers less.
The "all or nothing" mentality is pretty dumb.
Just amusing how you don't care unless the pile of bodies is too high to ignore.
I'm not arguing. I'm stating the fact that it's just a token gesture that doesn't address the real problem.
Are you seriously arguing that we should not try to make bump stocks illegal?
Seeing that even you recognize that it can't be enforced even you should understand how it won't have any effect on reality. Are you saying making bump stocks illegal would have had any effect on the mass shooting Wednesday?
Are you saying that banning bump stocks would have no effect on reality?
If it's so baffling for you then you should start by examining your belief that you have an argument. You don't.
Again, I'm baffled why anyone would argue against this.
You see zero negatives because you've put zero thought into it. Again, not an argument. Just a statement of fact.
I see zero negatives to banning bump stocks, and great potential positives.
Edited, Oct 20th 2017 10:18am by lolgaxe