Trump's Bump Stock Ban
I don't agree with Trump on most issues, but I do agree with him on this ban. Here is the summary of the final ruling from the ATF.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS
The new final rule confirms the definitional change offered in the proposed version. The definition of machinegun gets into much more detail, evidenced by the definition growing from 29 words to more than 220. To ensure bump stock devices are covered, they are explicitly mentioned by name, and the definition includes any devices that “allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.”
Bump stock owners (including retailers) will be required to turn in or destroy their devices within 90 days of the rule being published in the Federal Register.Likewise, I don't agree with Trump on most issues and do agree with him on this one.
We'll see if the NRA freaks out about it.I cannot agree. Not at all.
When the government decides it wants what you have legally purchased and own, and simply takes it without compensation it has crossed the line, and done so big time. It gets worse when you can be punished for not voluntarily giving up your chattel for no more reason that people are afraid.
We want to ban bump stocks and require owners to give them up, fine. But compensate them for what we're taking from them.Anyone who thinks guns are more important than human life will never agree with a bump stock ban.
Perhaps you failed to read the last paragraph?
"We want to ban bump stocks and require owners to give them up, fine."I wasn't disputing your comment. I was simply offering an opinion about people who will oppose the ban such as the NRA.
That said, in your previous views, the government "confiscates" all of the time, especially with taxes.Of course they do. And supposedly it provides roads, military, etc. That makes it all right to take without giving anything back, yes?
There have been many negative comments on Imminent Domain; here we have the same thing but without ANY compensation, not just a smaller amount than the victim thinks is reasonable.In this case, the government is trying to give back safety, something gun nuts don't care about.
Safety. As in confiscating land to widen and improve highways? Without, of course, paying for that land?
Or as in the whacko assumptions those afraid of a chunk of iron claim will solve problems this time even though it never has in the past? You know - the control freaks that think they have answers because they don't like guns and will do and say anything at all to spread fear until those nasty things are gone from the country?
But either way, Promisem, the fact remains that government should NEVER simply confiscate what a person legally acquired and owns. Not even by suddenly making the item illegal to own; if govt. wants to confiscate such items, whether a gun, land, a home or a bump stock it must provide reasonable compensation.
I really do believe, and hope, that this misbegotten plan from those control freaks fails at the first court appearance, and we can be sure it WILL be fought. That hope may come partly because I recognize that the ban will do zero good (not when they are readily available from a 3D printer), but I do hope it fails. I find this action to be unconscionable, beyond even the disarmament attempts. What's next - either give all your guns to Uncle Sam for free or face prison? It sets a precedent that cannot be allowed.As an aside, I have not seen one person in this thread who is complaining about the bump stock ban, explicitly criticize Trump for implementing it.
Even though Trump directed the DoJ to implement the ban, apparently the people responsible for it are:
"gun grabbers"
"the government"
"[whackos]"
"control freaks"
But not explicitly Donald Trump.
Does your lack of explicit criticism of Trump indicate that you believe he is not really responsible for the ban, and has been lead astray by the "control freaks"?
Or do you believe he is definitely responsible for the ban, and is just plain wrong?
Wilderness: It may be legally purchased when you bought it, but after the law passes, it will become illegal. And you want to be compensated for turning in an illegal item? Talk to your congressman, if you want to be compensated for turning them in.
People are afraid of the bad guys using bump stocks to commit mass shootings. By keeping them out of the hands of the bad guys will reduce people being killed in mass-shootings. The only way the bad guys can be prevented them from having them is to make them illegal for everybody. Or do you have a better idea?That's what I said: the bump stock was quite legal when you purchased, but then the govt. decides they don't like them, make the illegal and demand you give it to them. Want to bet that will be contested in court, and lose? Government cannot simply confiscate anything it likes, at the whim of legislators. It is no different than confiscating land for a new road - fair compensation must be paid.
"By keeping them out of the hands of the bad guys will reduce people being killed in mass-shootings."
If you could only show that to be true instead of just making the statement because you believe, without any evidence whatsoever, that it is. Much like Australia confiscating all the semi-automatic weapons, only to see the death toll from mass murders go unchanged and the toll from murders continue the same slow slide it had been on for decades.
No result for them, yet you insist that you know, somehow, that it will lower the death toll here. Wish I had your crystal ball; I'd use it on the stock market.It does confiscate all of the time in the form of taxes, court fines, even property in some situations.
Wilderness: Who do you think is going to pay for your confiscated bump stocks? Answer: You and me and everybody else who pays taxes. Do you even own a bump stock?
How about the people that are killed from mass killings and their families, how do they get paid back? "Just remember our thoughts and prayers are with you." Yeah right!Oh? And what is Uncle Sam paying for the stocks turned in?
No I don't. The quote "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” comes to mind here, however, as do the lives of the millions that have given their lives to protect the rights and freedoms we all enjoy. Confiscating goods on a whim and without compensation is not freedom - it is government run amuck.
Just another way to make the government more powerful than the people. The one Thing that the Trump administration has in common with 1940's Germany, and the Liberals love it.
Onusonus: It's not about making the government more powerful than the people. It's about making those who want to do harm to others less powerful. How do you know ahead of time when a person is going to become a mass shooter? You don't, so therefore, everybody has to sacrifice to take that potential away from those that might do harm to others before they do it.
Yes they can use other means, but common sense says it will reduce the use of weapons who's primary purpose is to be efficient killing machines like the ones used in combat.
Hitler gave guns to the Youth Core and they became the Storm Troopers of the NAZI military. You need to get your history straight.
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-hi … into-nazisAnd much like Hitler's brown shirts, Liberal politicians believe that only certain groups of people should be allowed to own a firearm. In fact with some they narrow it down to their body guards.
Had the 2nd Amendment existed in 1940's Germany 6 million Jews would have been able to defend themselves against a tyrannical state.
I find it interesting that liberals are always comparing Trump to Hitler yet they still want him to take away their means to self defense.onusonus: You were the one who brought up Germany in the 1940's not me. Am I missing something? Who were you referring to if not Hitler?
So you think 6 millions Jews would have been able to defend themselves against one of the most powerful military's in the Axis powers?
The problem with Germany was not only the German military, but the people were willing to look the other way and be indifferent as the Jews were made to live in ghettos and were unwittingly being carted off to concentration camps.
The tyrannical state is always used in these forums as the boogie man. Congratulations, you are the first one in this forum to use that reference. Fear is a great motivator.
So you think Trump is going to turn against his people and the 2nd amendment and your combat style weapons are going to protect you from the most powerful military in the world or do you think a foreign power is going to attack us with assault rifles, just like you guys have?
I have news for you. They are already attacking us, but it is not with firearms. It is called cyber warfare and the Russians and Chinese are very good at it. So you can put away your pea shooter and start learning coding. This is not 1776 or NAZI Germany, but it is the only country in the world that has a 2nd amendment that allows everybody to have guns, including the mentally ill.So the Jews didn't deserve to defend themselves because guns are too dangerous. It is that mentality that lead to the deaths of millions of Jews, Chinese, and Russians.
You are the one in dire need of a history lesson.O: So the Jews didn't deserve to defend themselves because guns are too dangerous. It is that mentality that lead to the deaths of millions of Jews, Chinese, and Russians.
M: I never said they didn't deserve to defend themselves, you did. Hitler's attack of the Jews, started out with him brainwashing the German populous by calling the news media fake news and then taking over the news outlets . (sound familiar?)
Then he started broadcasting propaganda that the Jews were what was wrong with the world. By then he had a huge military force and civilian force that rounded up the Jews and sent them to concentration camps to be exterminated as the final solution.
At what point during this scenario do you see the Jews defending themselves against the Germans? It was as much psychology and propaganda as it was warfare. As I said before, they were unwittingly taken to the concentration camps. Even when they were taken to the gas chambers, they were told, they were going to the showers.
Fighting against genocide is much more complex than you make it out to be. Look at what is happening in Syria. Bashar al Assad is taking out his own people, even though they are armed. They use barrel bombs loaded with lethal nerve gas dropped from Russian aircraft to take out the people who are against him. What good does an AR15 do in that situation? We even have our own military there for years. Do you think if you had to defend yourself against an enemy, it would be as simple as shooting them with an AR15?
Maybe you see them going house-to-house and you have your AR15 with a scope trained on them so that you can shoot the aggressors right between the eyes."Do you think if you had to defend yourself against an enemy, it would be as simple as shooting them with an AR15? "
Absolutely.Good Luck: You don't understand how genocide works. We are currently supplying Saudi Arabia with military fire power so that they bomb the hell out of Yemen's Houthis Shia's. These are not simple little skirmishes, they are full scale attacks meant to wipe a people off the face of the earth. Your AR 15's wouldn't last five minutes in an attack.
So what do you plan to do, keyboard them to death?
Onusonus: Money makes strange bedfellows. We sell arms to the Saudi's who in turn use those arms to try to annihilate their enemies in Yemen. We in turn put that money into our coffers. What can I do about it, sadly nothing. Trump is in bed with the Saudi's.
The only thing I can do is use my keyboard to inform others. I think we are getting off the track here. This forum is supposed to be about banning bump stocks. Anyhow, Merry Christmas.It's pretty simple; you believe that it's impossible for the people to defend themselves against nuclear armed governments and their military powers, and I get that.
But consider the past, The Japanese refused to fight a ground war in America due to the fact that nearly every citizen in this country could be quickly armed and ready to fight, which is the entire point to the 2nd Amendment.
Even if our military was ordered to start killing it's own citizens do you think everybody would be on board? Surely not. Do you think the people could not collectively shoot every drone out of the sky?
The private ownership of weapons in this country is the exact reason why this government doesn't turn tyrannical.
And when the government decides that the citizens don't need to be armed, that is the time when they most need to arm themselves.It's pretty simple; you believe that it's impossible for the people to defend themselves against nuclear armed governments and their military powers, and I get that.
O: But consider the past, The Japanese refused to fight a ground war in America due to the fact that nearly every citizen in this country could be quickly armed and ready to fight, which is the entire point to the 2nd Amendment.
M: So what was Pearl Harbor? A ground war requires an invasion of forces. The reason they never attacked our homeland is because it was well guarded by our military. I grew up then. I don't remember our citizens being quickly armed. Even if they were, they would be no match against a highly trained military force.
O: Even if our military was ordered to start killing it's own citizens do you think everybody would be on board? Surely not. Do you think the people could not collectively shoot every drone out of the sky?
M: Military drones can drop bombs and rockets from 10's of thousands of feet with pin-point accuracy. They are not these little hobby drones. Your AR15's don't have that kind of range that military drones have.
O:The private ownership of weapons in this country is the exact reason
why this government doesn't turn tyrannical.
M: So the only thing stopping the government from attacking us is because some citizens are armed?
O: And when the government decides that the citizens don't need to be armed, that is the time when they most need to arm themselves.
M: If we didn't have a 2nd amendment, there would be less gun related crime including terrorism. So you believe the only thing that protect us from the President of the United States turning on his or her people, is because some of the citizenry is armed?
O.K. you keep your AR15 with a bump stock because it will protect you from a foreign invasion and tyranny from your own government and you can shoot down all the remote controlled military drones you want.It is a historical fact that every country that has engaged in gun confiscation has promptly followed it up with mass genocide. But that's socialists for you. If you think that can't happen here, there are a lot of Germans, Russians, and Chinese that are laughing/weeping for you.
There are a lot of countries that don't have a 2nd amendment and have done just fine. In fact, I think we are the only country that has one.
Yeah like in Europe, because we protect them with our military.
You're right. Countries like Switzerland, that has the 3rd highest gun ownership rate in the world. And probably the highest percentage of residents that own a gun anywhere at all.
And, interestingly, also boasts one of the lowest murder rates and lowest mass murder rates of anywhere at all. Wonder how they do that with all those evil guns jumping out of their closets and killing people?Summary from Swiss national legislation covering firearms (Regulation on weapons, weapons accessories and ammunition)(1):
To buy or inherit a firearm, or an "essential component" you must meet the requirements to get a firearms acquisition permit.
If you meet the requirements, a permit is valid for six months and can be extended for three months maximum.
To buy ammunition, you must have a firearms acquisition permit, and provide the seller with a copy of your passport or other official ID, and a copy of your police record (not older than 3 months).
If you want to buy more than one firearm with a permit, you have to apply for a special exception. If you want to buy a firearm or ammunition after the permit expires, you have to apply for another acquisition permit, and prove you satisfy all the requirements again.
If you want to transfer ownership of a firearm to someone else, you have to:
Sign a written contract which includes the passport number, or official ID number of the recipient. Keep a copy of the contract for 10 years minimum (both parties). Provide a copy of the recipient's firearms permit to the relevant authority within 30 days of the transfer.
To get a permit to carry a firearm you must meet all the requirements for getting an acquisition permit, and explain your need to carry a weapon to defend yourself from a specific danger, and pass an exam to demonstrate your competence to use a weapon and knowledge of lawful use of a firearm.
etc.
There are more requirements than listed here, and they apply to the whole country.
How many states have all these requirements?
Seems Switzerland might be great example that shows sensible gun controls work, even in countries with high ownership rates.
(1) https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified- … index.html (translated from German)
That is true about Switzerland.
"The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people. In 2016, the country had 47 attempted homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero."
https://www.businessinsider.com/switzer … ths-2018-2Don, there are a few things you are leaving out about Switzerland. In that country ALL people must serve in the military. That means the majority of Swiss know about guns and how to handle them. ALSO in Switzerland, when you get out of the military you can purchase the weapon you used. I would have paid anything to have my M16 and 9mm pistol I carried in the Army. Did you know in 1999 when Switzerland adopted the European Union rules regarding guns, gun violence when up in Switzerland? Their permitting process at one time involved local law enforcement determining who could get weapons, when it went to a national level, things got messed up. I would be open to educating kids on guns and gun safety in the lower grades and bringing back the gun clubs.
So not only does Switzerland have the same strong safely laws applied consistently across the whole country, but also men must have military training by law (apparently it's voluntary for women)(1).
So in other words, comparing the approach to guns in Switzerland and the US is like comparing apples and oranges. Unless you're proposing that the whole country adopt the same strong gun safety laws as Switzerland, and military service be compulsory for 50% of the population.
100% agree with the first idea.
Not sure about the second. Although, to be fair, a Gallup poll in 2017 found 49% of participants in favor of 1 year compulsory military service for young adults. 47% opposed.
Either way, consistent, strong gun safety laws form an integral part of the gun safety culture in Switzerland. The outcome of that gun safety culture speaks for itself in the relatively low rate of gun violence in Switzerland.
(1) https://www.vtg.admin.ch/de/mein-milita … licht.html (translated from German)
(2) https://news.gallup.com/poll/221921/hal … rvice.aspx
As a hunter, I'm certainly not too big on gun control. However, I am for reasonable gun control laws, and bump stocks are a way around the law as it has been illegal to manufacture new fully automatic weapons since 1986. So, you could argue that a bump stock ban is really just upholding the current law. I'm guessing that's why "the definition of machinegun gets into much more detail."
Hard sun: I think there is little bit more to the law. Retailers and owners of bump stocks have 90 days after the law passes to destroy their bump stocks...so that is different.
I have no problem with banning bump stocks. I do believe it is like illegal drugs, it will only affect those who choose to obey the law.
A huge problem with this ban is the advancement of technology. A bump stock can be made with a 3-D printer. Just do a bit of a google search and then you'll realize, bump stocks, like drugs, will be illegal, but many people will still have them.
Will this law make a difference? Who knows? Like illegal drugs, those who want bump stocks will find a way to get them. Those who obey the law won't.
I have never owned or used a bump stock. I like hunting on an occasion as well as target shooting often. Neither one of those activities involve the use of a bump stock.
So, I hope the ban does some good.
Read about the very real 3-D printer bump stock.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/3d-p … n-obsoleteLOL. There are also other ways to simulate automatic fire without using a bump stock. I guess a person who knew anything about guns would know that. Can't expect a gun grabber, someone wishing to induce mass murders, and with no regard for history or facts to understand something like that though.
Wesman: It has nothing to do with knowing about guns. It has to do with reducing mass-shootings. I know this, it is far easier to buy and use a bump stock than it is for the bad guys to modify a semi-automatic and make it fully automatic.
You mean like in California and Illinois where gun control reduced gun crimes? Oh wait, that didn't happen in either of those places.
First I thought it was strange that you and other Donald Trump fans haven't mention his name once, even though he is the person pushing to implement the ban.
Then I understood your difficulty. So I'd like to help.
Here are a selection of phrases you need, but are obviously struggling to say:
"Donald Trump is wrong on this issue"
"Donald Trump has made a mistake"
"I disagree with Donald Trump's policy choice"
"Donald Trump is misinformed on this issue"
"Et tu Donald?"
"No Donald, for the love of everything holy, say it ain't so!"
"Why Donald why!!??"
"Donald, I think we need to spend some time apart"
Absolutely no need to thank me.
Confiscation is theft. Theft is violence. Violence just leads to more violence.
Wesman: Mass-shootings are violence. Mass-shootings lead to murder and injury. Making bump stocks illegal, will lead to reducing mass-shootings and injury.
If we let everyone have bump stocks, that means the bad guys will have them as well. Why does a civilian need a fully automatic firearm?"Making bump stocks illegal, will lead to reducing mass-shootings and injury. "
An interesting claim. And as evidence, you offer the real world experience of... What? That you think it will work so it must be taken as factual?Except you've been shown before how none of that is true. You didn't care. You do not care. What you care about is your fake sense of moral superiority. You posted this hoping some of the usual suspects would come along and tell you, 'oh yes, you are so right. Aren't we so morally superior!'
You know of exactly one instance where a bump stock was used. You also know your government and the horrific leftist mass media shut up really quickly about that whole situation. You could think, and surmise there was a reason for them doing so. It would require thinking though.Ouch, you scored the perfect verbal kill shot.
I know I don't have to simulate an automatic rifle to kill a deer.
Everybody: There is no evidence that banning bump stocks will reduce mass shootings. But how are we going to gain any evidence unless we try? Doing nothing is also an action. Your evidence is based on foreign countries confiscation of weapons, but not on banning bump stocks. The other thing that should be banned is high capacity magazines. Bump stocks and high capacity magazines go hand-in-hand for mass-killings.
I do not feel that I am morally superior to anybody. But you people that keep bringing it up must feel morally inferior or you wouldn't keep stating that.
I feel empathy for those who were victims and those who lost loved ones. Why does any civilian need fully automatic weapons? I ask again and again, but no one answers that question.
What is wrong with having moral values anyway? Being selfish is also being morally wrong. Banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines is a sacrifice of the many to save a few, that it my view should be made. Again, there is no evidence to support that, but if we don't try, there will never be any evidence.We had a speaker of the house named Nancy Pelosi once tell the American public in regards to Obama Care "We have to pass the bill to see what is in the bill."
I guess she thought the American public was really stupid.
Now you are saying...."We won't know if gun restriction laws works until we pass these gun restriction laws."
This may work with the mental abilities of liberals. Conservatives can look beyond your words to see your goals.
WE are not that stupid. Nice try.Readmikenow: Let's just keep this simple. How would you feel if one of your loved ones was taken out by person using a bump stock and high capacity magazines?
Poor argument. Let me explain to you how reality works. With or without laws in place my loved ones, your loved ones and everybody's loved ones could be taken out by a bump stock or high capacity magazine. Laws don't matter to someone who wants to commit a mass shooting. I believe the liberal approach to this is to pass laws that make you feel good and do nothing real. They only punish those who abide by the laws. Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem.
Readmikenow:
R: Poor argument. Let me explain to you how reality works. With or without laws in place my loved ones, your loved ones and everybody's loved ones could be taken out by a bump stock or high capacity magazine.
M: That's true, however, if someone is taken out and there are laws to prevent that, then whoever committed said crime is subject to appropriate legal action based on those laws.
R:Laws don't matter to someone who wants to commit a mass shooting. I believe the liberal approach to this is to pass laws that make you feel good and do nothing real.
M: You just said "I believe." That means it is nothing more than your opinion.
R: They only punish those who abide by the laws. Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem.
M: Really, then why is it that people who break the law, have legal action against them ? People with guns who want to harm others is the problem."That's true, however, if someone is taken out and there are laws to prevent that, then whoever committed said crime is subject to appropriate legal action based on those laws."
I agree. There are plenty of laws on the books concerning guns. There is plenty of punishment currently available.
"You just said "I believe." That means it is nothing more than your opinion."
I agree. Such as passing laws will eliminate bump stocks. It's an opinion.
"Really, then why is it that people who break the law, have legal action against them ? People with guns who want to harm others is the problem."
Again...we agree. People with guns who WANT to harm others. That is the real problem. I think history has proven someone with the desire will always find a way. If there was a way to eliminate that desire, we could end mass shootings. I think this goes deep into social as well as cultural issues and more. You have to ask yourself why were mass shooting unheard of in the 1940s and 1950s. Why was that something unthinkable during that time in American history.
"But how are we going to gain any evidence unless we try? "
You might look at the experience of other countries that have done similar things, of not the exact same. Australia comes to mind; they took all semi-automatic guns...for zero result. Mustn't mention that, though, or else spin it into something that isn't true or isn't relevant.
"Why does any civilian need fully automatic weapons? I ask again and again, but no one answers that question. "
You probably don't get an answer because it isn't relevant. Need is not a requirement to want or have something; only desire (and the resources to get it). This is just another red herring to divert attention, nothing more.
"What is wrong with having moral values anyway?"
What? Taking things from people because you're afraid of them, or just don't like them, is moral? Not in my world.
Wilderness went out of his way, as he often does, to show the OP how none of his ideas have any basis in reality. OP did not listen. OP does not care about facts. OP does not care about logic. OP is a gun grabber. He wants to incite the same sort of violence as was seen last century. All 'progressive' ideas lead to social disorder and violence. OP wants more of that exactly.
He's incapable reflecting upon things which contradict his virtue signaling. He just keeps repackaging the same tired old things in brand new forum posts. He presumes these things make him appear to be caring, wise, and thinking of the nation's best interests. Sadly, there are persons forever willing to fall for that.Wesman: Everything you stated about me is nothing more than your opinion. Nice try at trying to bait me, but that dog don't don't hunt anymore.
I bet everybody on this forum doesn't even own a bump stock. You are all so afraid they are coming after your guns. You are all suffering from the slippery slope syndrome.
Obama is no longer president and the threat of tyranny went down the tubes and so did gun sales.
And now you are using the bump stock ban to continue your anxiety led fear that they are coming for your guns. Again, it shows you don't care about mass killings. All you care about is they are coming for your guns...selfish, cruel, and without any empathy. Oh by the way, you can thank your beloved leader for approving the ban.
Related Discussions
- 507
Why does any civilian need assault rifles?
by Mike Russo 6 years ago
Ask the 59 people who were killed and the 525 people who were wounded and all of those who were traumatized by this horrific event, if we need gun control. Why does any civilian need access to assault weapons? The problem is the mentally ill are an unknown quantity until after they commit the...
- 140
These Gun Safety Ideas WOULD Reduce Mass Killings
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
The following ideas would, I think, go a long way to REDUCE (not eliminate) mass killings in particular and death by gun overall.1. Heavily regulate ownership of any weapon classified as "semi-automatic", whether pistol or rifle. 2. Heavily regulate possession of any magazine over 10...
- 33
Do the legitimate uses of semiautomatic rifles like the Bushmaster 223 outweigh
by tipstoretireearly 11 years ago
Do the legitimate uses of semiautomatic rifles like the Bushmaster 223 outweigh their horrific uses?The Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic rifle can be purchased for $699.99 from Gander Mountain. That price includes a 30-round .223 Remington magazine. Do the legitimate uses of such...
- 26
Even the NRA is willing to regulate bump stocks
by promisem 6 years ago
The most powerful gun lobby in the country, which fiercely opposes any gun legislation, is now saying it is willing to regulate the bump stocks used in the Vegas massacre.I'm curious if the people posting on HP forums against gun laws agree or disagree with the...
- 123
When will people start thinking for themselves?
by movingout 11 years ago
Fear is a powerful tool to lead people to do stupid things! Example: running out and buying guns and ammo because they "are led to believe", the current administration is going to take away all guns! To listen to radio and tv news shows using the word "civil war!" Using our...
- 21
Gun Control Paradox
by Jessie Watson 6 years ago
I believe we've finally received a signal among all the white noise of gun control debates. After banning bump stocks and restricting AR-15 sales, the leftist rabble has voiced their hunger for more through a desperate call for repeal of the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately for them, this has awoken...