I don’t think that you can exercise such fine motor skills while you are shooting up a school or other mass gatherings - which was the whole point of the ban in the first place.
I don’t understand the kind of sociopathy required (by the judges in question) to seek an excuse to pedantically redefine a device whose whole original purpose is killing people en-masse.
I’m not interested in discussing the first paragraph but for the second; as I understand it you have to define something before you can regulate it. The pedantry is over the definition of a machine gun in that a bump stock doesn’t really apply because each bump is a separate action by the operator, and the court apparently agreed. The definition of a machine gun can be changed perhaps to define a maximum rate of fire instead of number of rounds fired per trigger pull or something.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
FWIW you can bump fire without a bump stock, It just requires a little bit of manual dexterity
I don’t think that you can exercise such fine motor skills while you are shooting up a school or other mass gatherings - which was the whole point of the ban in the first place.
I don’t understand the kind of sociopathy required (by the judges in question) to seek an excuse to pedantically redefine a device whose whole original purpose is killing people en-masse.
I’m not interested in discussing the first paragraph but for the second; as I understand it you have to define something before you can regulate it. The pedantry is over the definition of a machine gun in that a bump stock doesn’t really apply because each bump is a separate action by the operator, and the court apparently agreed. The definition of a machine gun can be changed perhaps to define a maximum rate of fire instead of number of rounds fired per trigger pull or something.