What fierce resistance? The ban is rather popular, even with gun owners.
The “fierce resistance” I am speaking of is non-compliance.
What fierce resistance? The ban is rather popular, even with gun owners.
I'm kind of in an overlapping version of this position. On principle, I don't think the government has or should have the right to tell you what accessories you can place on your firearm, with the exception of after market items that would truly move it into an NFA classification (such as SBR or full auto conversion)
The “fierce resistance” I am speaking of is non-compliance.
Nah.come 1, come all.
by order of the king
a 1000 pieces of gold for information leading to the confiscation of these evil things.
does your neighbor own one?
come forth and tell the king and collect your gold.
I hope that happens.Hell, it wouldn’t cost that much. All they would have to do is offer people fair market value (new list price) and people would most likely turn them in. The government wastes so much of taxpayer money “trying to keep us safe” this would be a drop in the bucket.
The whole thing reeks of injustice and almost looks like it was written to be struck down in litigation.
A pistol grip, flash hider, and bayo lug USED to be illegal and could very well be again in the future. Where were the successful legal challenges then?Examples? If a bump stock is banned, what next? A pistol grip? 223 ammo? A scope? The color black? The list goes on.
Hey, a conservative USSC and President...nothing to worry about here people.
Well, the POTUS is relatable to some of the lowest common denominator types, but he LITERALLY owns country clubs and markets them as POTUS.
He has no care about regular people at all - the kind of people that like bumpstocks because they can't afford NFA stuff.
He "markets them as POTUS"? I guess I've missed those commercials. I sure haven't heard him plugging his resorts in any of his speeches (or tweets). Got an example? Maybe I've just missed them.
And no care about regular people? So bringing jobs back, encouraging business growth, lowering taxes, growing the economy... that doesn't help "regular people"? C'mon man...
C'mon man, you really think he cares about the businesses that make and sell bumpstocks? There does not appear to be any financial help for that industry that he effectively shut down.
"The President vacationed again at his resort, Mar-a-lago, which he refers to as his Southern White House."
That kind of media coverage is worth millions in the ad market.
That may happen, but that's not what he cares about.
Those things help him. His investments. His businesses. His family. His friends.
C'mon man, you really think he cares about the businesses that make and sell bumpstocks? There does not appear to be any financial help for that industry that he effectively shut down.
First, the media is the one "marketing" Mar-a-Lago if you want to call it that. I suppose they also "marketed" Camp David, or Kennebunkport, or Hyannis Port?
I get that you don't like the bumpstock ban, and a lot of people don't, not so much for what it is, but for what it represents. But to imply that banning bumpstocks is going to be a huge blow to "the common man" because it puts their manufacturers (some of whom probably manufacture other items) out of business is a stretch. And it's not just Trump's businesses that are helped by a growing economy. To imply otherwise is disingenuous. I'd wager that when the next employment stats come out, the bumpstock sector barely makes a blip, if at all.
Last I checked, I can't book a room at Camp David, the Bush family vacation home at Kennebunkport, or whatever is in Hyannis Port (I know I'll recognize it, I just can't think of it at the moment.) Mar-a-lago is a business, owned and operated by the POTUS.
Trump going there is marketing it because he knows it'll get reported. He could go to Camp David, but where's the money in that?
I'm not implying that banning bumpstocks is a blow to the common man (or Robert Kraft). I'm saying that it is evidence that Trump doesn't give 2 flips about people that he doesn't make money from.
I'm not implying a good economy only helps Trump businesses. I'm saying that Trump only cares about a good economy that helps his businesses. If it helps others, that's great, because it helps his poll numbers, which helps him raise money.
Other presidents were rich, but they took steps to separate their personal wealth from their policy decisions. If there is evidence of Trump making that same separation, please direct me to it.
Well if you were in the military or government you could have the opportunity to stay there or as a personal guest of the President.Last I checked, I can't book a room at Camp David, the Bush family vacation home at Kennebunkport, or whatever is in Hyannis Port (I know I'll recognize it, I just can't think of it at the moment.) Mar-a-lago is a business, owned and operated by the POTUS.
Trump going there is marketing it because he knows it'll get reported. He could go to Camp David, but where's the money in that?
I'm not implying that banning bumpstocks is a blow to the common man (or Robert Kraft). I'm saying that it is evidence that Trump doesn't give 2 flips about people that he doesn't make money from.
I'm not implying a good economy only helps Trump businesses. I'm saying that Trump only cares about a good economy that helps his businesses. If it helps others, that's great, because it helps his poll numbers, which helps him raise money.
Other presidents were rich, but they took steps to separate their personal wealth from their policy decisions. If there is evidence of Trump making that same separation, please direct me to it.
Trump is and was a businessman. Businesses are the primary economic drivers of a country. Would you expect him to make policies that would hurt businesses? That would make no sense. I have no problem with his businesses prospering along with other businesses to which he has no connections. Is it better to use the position to funnel money directly to your own foundation, a la the Clintons? What segment of the economy did that benefit (besides the Clintons and Uranium One)?
T, you're edging close to sounding like the people that say "There shouldn't be any billionaires! Nobody needs that much money!"