The only correction of mistakes that should occur is the following:
The word Infringed be completely re-defined in the dictionary from what it states currently or
Any gun law enacted at all, anywhere, by anyone, be repealed and/or voided.
We don't need to re-define "infringed". The definition used in choosing that word was "violated". The definition used for "violate" was: To transgress, corrupt, go after, or otherwise harass.
The meaning of the sentence as a whole is easily understood, as well. It's one of the most "correctly" written statements of all time, and the authors would be ashamed of a nation that can't understand it.
Continuing to make laws, create categories, require registration, enact training requirements, licensing, etc serves 0 purpose other than to state: The Constitution, as written, is worthless garbage. It carries no weight.
Agreed, but a definition of automatic fire needs to properly address trigger actuation via user-encouraged external forces in relation to the sale of devices. Any conflict, to include an argument, must be based on solid foundations. That foundation had a crack.
This is why everyone is so angry, confused, and ignorant today. Critical thinking is a lost discipline.
If a "bump stock" is illegal, is it similarly illegal for me to mount my rifle and insert a stick or rod in front of the trigger and pull back on it repeatedly and often? (this serves the exact same purpose as a bump stock although it is more stationary). Maybe we can define "trigger pull" as occurring one per minute, but no more. More than one per minute is hereby outlawed.
What you do is one thing. What is allowed for open sale on the market is another. Banning bump stocks effectively defined a trigger pull as the trigger being actuated fully. Leave such arguments for the opposition.
They should probably outlaw bayonet lugs too. Talk about worthless in this day and age, especially for non-combat personnel, right?
I mean as long as infringed doesn't mean what it's defined as and outlawing dumb things is A-ok as long as there's a quorum of people saying they're dumb, we certainly shouldn't stop at just the bump stock.
Bayonett lugs do not affect the function of the firearm action. They are not in play in this discussion.
You're assuming that I don't understand your point. I do, and I support it. I know precisely what the Constitution says about firearms. I own my fair share, and some would have been illegal in the past. Some are currently targeted by the screaming mob to be made illegal.
I don't want that to happen. Using their own argument methods, however, is folly. Do you see how, if we continue down your posting process, we will never get anywhere? To my single point and estimation, you have brought a number of different and unrelated questions. I will forever be stuck addressing them, and nobody will accomplish a damned thing. There is no opportunity to reach truth.
This is why those other threads have gone on as long as they have. Few understand how to explore a topic and leave more educated, and those that do have either walked away in frustration in the face of ignorance, or only pop in on occasion.
Anything involving firearm regulations needs to be
certain. There was uncertainty, and nearly everyone familiar with bump stocks before they entered popular interest knows it. If we can't agree, we can't fight together as a single unit for the protection of our rights.
Someone just agreed for us. That sucks, but it solved the problem. I'd love to see it all overturned, but failing that, I am patient enough to see it through piece by piece, and shoring up both the freedoms and laws we do have currently makes it more easy to defend them both in the future.
It cuts out an avenue of potential bullshit and sensationalism.
Cheers,
Kennith
