Quote:
Originally Posted by sigp220.45
There are tons of restrictions on the freedom of the press. They can't publish libelous statements with malice, they don't have unrestricted access to prisons, military bases, or other restricted areas. They can be jailed if they don't reveal certain sources. They can't have cameras in certain courtrooms. The freedom of the press is far from absolute.
A bump-fire stock isn't a firearm (and plenty of those are restricted, too). Its an accessory, and a pretty dumb one at that.
A ban on these is not only inevitable now, it is probably constitutionally sound. If the feds don't do it, plenty of states will, with probably far more reaching effects.
|
Don't own one, don't want one, don't see the need for one.
That said, the anti's don't look at this like you or I do. Its one more action chipping away at the Second Amendment. Like the anarchists clamoring to ban this or tear down that, the "subject at hand" is not their end game. They don't really care about this accessory. Its just one more tiny step toward their ultimate goal. They are very patient. They see any compromise as a win for them and a loss for anyone who disagrees with them.
As for your comment that if the feds don't the states will, that's directly from their playbook. Chip, chip, chip, anywhere, anytime. No matter how small or potentially insignificant, they see it as a win. A win that emboldens them and that's why I will never agree to give them any quarter.
Just my 2 cents.