# Trump: "Bumps Stocks will Be Gone"



## RedLion

A short time. POTUS needs to stay away from any and all gun control including endorsing banning bump stocks. He needs to get behind Constitutional Carry among other issues. Stop the gun control talk POTUS.

Donald Trump: ?We?re Knocking Out Bump Stocks? | Fortune


----------



## The Resister

"_Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed_..." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto

WHEN Trump allows / directs Jeff Sessions to "_outlaw_" bump stocks, it will create a precedent to outlaw any and all weapons via executive fiat. The next time a liberal takes control in the White House, they can "_outlaw_" high capacity magazines, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, folding / collapsible stocks, etc.

Trump is stark raving lunatic OR a wolf in sheep's clothing. We, the sheeple, continue to be hoodwinked by the left because they have dictated our strategies and thinking processes. All they have to do is send in sleepers like Trump and we react like dogs that were Pavlovian conditioned. Don't some of you think it's time to start using critical thinking skills and speak out?


----------



## Camel923

Gun control will tick off the base. The democrats will not vote for you because of banning bump stocks. So why do it? While I think they are junk, their is that pesky phrase shall not be infringed.


----------



## Sasquatch

The Resister said:


> "_Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed_..." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
> 
> WHEN Trump allows / directs Jeff Sessions to "_outlaw_" bump stocks, it will create a precedent to outlaw any and all weapons via executive fiat. The next time a liberal takes control in the White House, they can "_outlaw_" high capacity magazines, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, folding / collapsible stocks, etc.
> 
> Trump is stark raving lunatic OR a wolf in sheep's clothing. We, the sheeple, continue to be hoodwinked by the left because they have dictated our strategies and thinking processes. All they have to do is send in sleepers like Trump and we react like dogs that were Pavlovian conditioned. Don't some of you think it's time to start using critical thinking skills and speak out?


That was funny. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## hawgrider

Sasquatch said:


> That was funny. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Who let him back in here?


----------



## Inor

hawgrider said:


> Who let him back in here?


The Russians!


----------



## hawgrider

Inor said:


> The Russians!


I thought maybe they had to trade Blowgoat for Resister


----------



## Kauboy

If I need one, I'll just print one.
:vs_laugh:
"When bump stocks are outlawed, only outlaws will have bump stocks."
Or something like that...


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> If I need one, I'll just print one.
> :vs_laugh:
> "When bump stocks are outlawed, only outlaws will have bump stocks."
> Or something like that...


It will be no laughing matter when some guy gets a decade in prison over a freaking piece of plastic that does not alter the functionality of the firearm no more than a flash suppressor does.


----------



## The Resister

Camel923 said:


> Gun control will tick off the base. The democrats will not vote for you because of banning bump stocks. So why do it? While I think they are junk, their is that pesky phrase shall not be infringed.


Trump's plan circumvents the Congress. It is legislative fiat by Executive Order. Adding insult to injury, there will be no _"pre-ban_" bump stocks as there would be IF Diane Frankenstein got enough support to outlaw them.

Trump is doing the Democrats the favor of a lifetime. The thing that pisses me off about it is that he said the ban was coming after the process had run its course. In other words, Trump won't even consider the public's input since we're still in the stage of having the feds read and study the public comments on the ban proposal. Your voice means nothing to a tyrant.


----------



## ekim

"Shall not infringe" says it all. Whats next rubberbands? Then fingers!


----------



## Kauboy

The Resister said:


> It will be no laughing matter when some guy gets a decade in prison over a freaking piece of plastic that does not alter the functionality of the firearm no more than a flash suppressor does.


They aren't interested in the function. They are interested in the result.
I think we all agree, it certainly affects the result the firearm produces.
The rub is, the same result can be achieved with less effort, and no additional parts.

Still, it will always be a laughing matter when stupid people make decisions with stupid logic.


The Resister said:


> Adding insult to injury, there will be no _"pre-ban_" bump stocks as there would be IF Diane Frankenstein got enough support to outlaw them.


You make this claim every time, and every time I ask for your support.
Please provide evidence.


----------



## Gunn

It doesn't matter, I lost mine in the Ohio River even though I live in Jefferson.:tango_face_wink:


----------



## Sasquatch

Inor said:


> The Russians!


----------



## RJAMES

Trump says a lot of things. He has said more than once he already banned them. Will it get done? Who knows certainly not trump. 

I think the bump stock should have not been approved for sale to begin with - it increases the rate of fire on a semi auto and as such should not have been allowed as it is an attempt to achieve full auto rates of fire. 

Then there is the product sucks.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The regulation of so-called bump stocks is completely up to the BATFE.

They had originally outlawed them, when they were first introduced. They later were swayed to approve them.

While the Second Amendment is quite broad, I don't see how bump stocks fit in there.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

RJAMES said:


> Trump says a lot of things. He has said more than once he already banned them. Will it get done? Who knows certainly not trump.
> 
> I think the bump stock should have not been approved for sale to begin with - it increases the rate of fire on a semi auto and as such should not have been allowed as it is an attempt to achieve full auto rates of fire.
> 
> Then there is the product sucks.


Fully automatic weapons are quite legal to own, provided you get the necessary paperwork. And have enough money to afford one. They are legal in many states, maybe even yours.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Yup. Fully automatic weapons legal in Missouri. 
Simply google "states allowing fully automatic weapons."


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> They aren't interested in the function. They are interested in the result.
> I think we all agree, it certainly affects the result the firearm produces.
> The rub is, the same result can be achieved with less effort, and no additional parts.
> 
> Still, it will always be a laughing matter when stupid people make decisions with stupid logic.
> 
> You make this claim every time, and every time I ask for your support.
> Please provide evidence.


What do you need evidence OF? Did you fail social civics in high school? Let's start talking high school civics. HERE is your evidence:

"_No Bill of Attainder or *ex post facto Law shall be passed*_." Article I Section 9 Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States.

In 1994, Bill Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban into effect. Due to the fact that you cannot pass an ex-post facto law any banned weapon that was legally owned on or before the date of the Assault Weapon Ban, was still perfectly legal to own. That is because an ex - post facto law is defined as:

_"ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that *punishes actions retroactively*, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:

Art 1, § 9 This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Art. 1 § 10. This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto._

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto

So-called "assault weapons were legally owned prior to Clinton signing the ban were protected. That is a FACT.

Here is a direct quote from the *Wall Street Journal*:

"_The proposed federal ban on bump stocks would require owners to hand over or destroy the devices that make semiautomatic rifles shoot like rapid-fire machine guns_."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/proposed-bump-stock-ban-would-be-tough-to-enforce-1523185201

Do you see any ex - post language there? NO. If you have a bump stock after the time period runs out to turn them in or destroy them, you will be in violation of federal law. So, what is the difference?

The government will simply argue that the executive department does not "_pass_" laws regarding bump stocks. The executive branch of the government does not legislate. The president simply hands down an executive directive or order. The ban, though ex post facto, will hold up in court because the executive department does not legislate laws.

The underlying issue is that bump stocks were submitted to the government for approval. The government said the bump stock did not affect the mechanical functionality so as to be anything but legal. So, NOTHING changed. Trump simply decided to pretend he's doing something.

Common sense dictates to me that Trump is setting a precedent that features on a previously "legally" held weapon can be outlawed by the EXECUTIVE branch of government. So, when a liberal president begins outlawing magazines, flash suppressors, folding / collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, barrel shrouds and / or vertical grips it will have the effect of outlawing entire classes of weapons.

Again, what Trump is doing is using his power (and doing so illegally) to legislate and to outlaw weapons on the basis of superficial features. *NOTHING* holds back a future president from following suit.


----------



## The Resister

RJAMES said:


> Trump says a lot of things. He has said more than once he already banned them. Will it get done? Who knows certainly not trump.
> 
> I think the bump stock should have not been approved for sale to begin with - it increases the rate of fire on a semi auto and as such should not have been allowed as it is an attempt to achieve full auto rates of fire.
> 
> Then there is the product sucks.


You are exactly 100 percent wrong:






In reality, fully auto weapons are the most protected firearms and because they are not, it is an indication that the government you live under is not the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution.


----------



## Kauboy

The Resister said:


> What do you need evidence OF? Did you fail social civics in high school? Let's start talking high school civics. HERE is your evidence:
> 
> "_No Bill of Attainder or *ex post facto Law shall be passed*_." Article I Section 9 Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> In 1994, Bill Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban into effect. Due to the fact that you cannot pass an ex-post facto law any banned weapon that was legally owned on or before the date of the Assault Weapon Ban, was still perfectly legal to own. That is because an ex - post facto law is defined as:
> 
> _"ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that *punishes actions retroactively*, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
> 
> Art 1, § 9 This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
> Art. 1 § 10. This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto._
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
> 
> So-called "assault weapons were legally owned prior to Clinton signing the ban were protected. That is a FACT.
> 
> Here is a direct quote from the *Wall Street Journal*:
> 
> "_The proposed federal ban on bump stocks would require owners to hand over or destroy the devices that make semiautomatic rifles shoot like rapid-fire machine guns_."
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/proposed-bump-stock-ban-would-be-tough-to-enforce-1523185201
> 
> Do you see any ex - post language there? NO. If you have a bump stock after the time period runs out to turn them in or destroy them, you will be in violation of federal law. So, what is the difference?
> 
> The government will simply argue that the executive department does not "_pass_" laws regarding bump stocks. The executive branch of the government does not legislate. The president simply hands down an executive directive or order. The ban, though ex post facto, will hold up in court because the executive department does not legislate laws.
> 
> The underlying issue is that bump stocks were submitted to the government for approval. The government said the bump stock did not affect the mechanical functionality so as to be anything but legal. So, NOTHING changed. Trump simply decided to pretend he's doing something.
> 
> Common sense dictates to me that Trump is setting a precedent that features on a previously "legally" held weapon can be outlawed. So, when a liberal president begins outlawing magazines, flash suppressors, folding / collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, barrel shrouds and / or vertical grips it will have the effect of outlawing entire classes of weapons.
> 
> Again, what Trump is doing is using his power (and doing so illegally) to legislate and to outlaw weapons on the basis of superficial features. *NOTHING* holds back a future president from following suit.


Ok, so again, you have ZERO proof of future events.
You *THINK* you know. You make sure you blast it out as if it was fact.
But you don't know.
You're making an assumption, and we all know what you do when you assume...

Until it becomes part of the federal register, you can guess, and proclaim, and pontificate to your little hearts content, riling up the troops and spiking your blood pressure.
All the while reminding us all that you're the only one in the country who understands these things...
And until it is written in the books, it's just speculation.

Are you always so quick to conclude things when no real facts exist? Is speculation and conjecture sufficient for your decision making?
If you would only tweak your arguments slightly, to say you "think" a retro-active change is coming, or that you "anticipate" such an action, that would give you some credibility.
But to state it as if it were fact, when nothing stands to support the claim "yet", reduces your argument to foolishness.

I certainly oppose a future as you describe. However, we don't know if that is actually what will happen. I'm not one to fly off the handle because of a "maybe" scenario. I would caution you to temper yourself in the same manner. It does no good.
You claim to be a legal scholar, so I would hope you have connections to people who can get real answers. Not a WSJ article, not some radio host's latest vision dream, but a real solid contact with knowledge of current activities in the federal government concerning this action. Heck, the video even names the lawyer at the root of it all. It shouldn't be too hard for a man of your legal stature and influence to reach out to him and find out the REAL truth.
Let us know how it goes, and what you find out.

Until then, let's keep the apocalyptic claims to a low murmur.


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> Ok, so again, you have ZERO proof of future events.
> You *THINK* you know. You make sure you blast it out as if it was fact.
> But you don't know.
> You're making an assumption, and we all know what you do when you assume...
> 
> Until it becomes part of the federal register, you can guess, and proclaim, and pontificate to your little hearts content, riling up the troops and spiking your blood pressure.
> All the while reminding us all that you're the only one in the country who understands these things...
> And until it is written in the books, it's just speculation.
> 
> Are you always so quick to conclude things when no real facts exist? Is speculation and conjecture sufficient for your decision making?
> If you would only tweak your arguments slightly, to say you "think" a retro-active change is coming, or that you "anticipate" such an action, that would give you some credibility.
> But to state it as if it were fact, when nothing stands to support the claim "yet", reduces your argument to foolishness.
> 
> I certainly oppose a future as you describe. However, we don't know if that is actually what will happen. I'm not one to fly off the handle because of a "maybe" scenario. I would caution you to temper yourself in the same manner. It does no good.
> You claim to be a legal scholar, so I would hope you have connections to people who can get real answers. Not a WSJ article, not some radio host's latest vision dream, but a real solid contact with knowledge of current activities in the federal government concerning this action. Heck, the video even names the lawyer at the root of it all. It shouldn't be too hard for a man of your legal stature and influence to reach out to him and find out the REAL truth.
> Let us know how it goes, and what you find out.
> 
> Until then, let's keep the apocalyptic claims to a low murmur.


I'm not making an assumption. I'm telling you like it is. I'm not sure you can understand the way the law works. I don't need to be a "_legal scholar,_" but I did have lunch with a state senator and a former state attorney general. We had this very discussion.

Knowing how the law plays out is not 100 percent accurate, but I know damn well what I'd do if Trump opened that door for me and I were a flaming liberal. I suppose that by studying the issue* from both sides* is the reason that, whether you like it or not, makes me pretty damn good at what I do.

Having a* precedent *to work from is a far better indicator than you having that much faith in a mortal man that would lie to you in a heartbeat... Trump IS a politician after all. I don't like waiting until the Titanic is sinking to start figuring a way off the boat. I can explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

AND what I presented as *FACT* is just that: *FACT.*

And if you asked my critics that didn't fare too well how accurate my predictions can be, they would have to grudgingly admit, yep the guy was right.


----------



## Kauboy

The Resister said:


> I'm not making an assumption. I'm telling you like it is. I'm not sure you can understand the way the law works. I don't need to be a "_legal scholar,_" but I did have lunch with a state senator and a former state attorney general. We had this very discussion.
> 
> Knowing how the law plays out is not 100 percent accurate, but I know damn well what I'd do if Trump opened that door for me and I were a flaming liberal. I suppose that by studying the issue* from both sides* is the reason that, whether you like it or not, makes me pretty damn good at what I do.
> 
> Having a* precedent *to work from is a far better indicator than you having that much faith in a mortal man that would lie to you in a heartbeat... Trump IS a politician after all. I don't like waiting until the Titanic is sinking to start figuring a way off the boat. I can explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
> 
> AND what I presented as *FACT* is just that: *FACT.*
> 
> And if you asked my critics that didn't fare too well how accurate my predictions can be, they would have to grudgingly admit, yep the guy was right.


You throw around the word "fact", but don't seem to actually know what it means. A fact can be proven. Until ink is put to paper on this action, you can't prove a darn thing.
Then, in the next breath, you speak of your PREDICTIONS!
Finally, a bit a truth.
You are making a prediction. A guess based on intuition and experience, but a guess nonetheless.
I can respect someone who makes *predictions* with some authority on the matter. I cannot respect someone who proclaims *facts* for that which does not exist.

Your assumption of my faith in Trump is inaccurate. I guess that prediction didn't pan out too well.
I don't know what he will do, but I know he is speaking and acting as if he is going to do something I don't agree with. I'm not entering a state of panic over it just yet since we DON'T HAVE THE FACTS. However, I am paying close attention to it.

We have no objective reason to believe you are "good at what you do". Keep the self aggrandizement toned down a notch.

I did chuckle a bit when you claimed that you weren't sure I could understand "the way the law works", when you just went on a rant about how this won't be a law. Thanks for that.
The folks you had lunch with don't sound like they are part of the action in the least, so their opinion is just that. I'm looking for 1st hand accounts of the real work being done.
Until then, yes, all you have is assumption.


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> You throw around the word "fact", but don't seem to actually know what it means. A fact can be proven. Until ink is put to paper on this action, you can't prove a darn thing.
> Then, in the next breath, you speak of your PREDICTIONS!
> Finally, a bit a truth.
> You are making a prediction. A guess based on intuition and experience, but a guess nonetheless.
> I can respect someone who makes *predictions* with some authority on the matter. I cannot respect someone who proclaims *facts* for that which does not exist.
> 
> Your assumption of my faith in Trump is inaccurate. I guess that prediction didn't pan out too well.
> I don't know what he will do, but I know he is speaking and acting as if he is going to do something I don't agree with. I'm not entering a state of panic over it just yet since we DON'T HAVE THE FACTS. However, I am paying close attention to it.
> 
> We have no objective reason to believe you are "good at what you do". Keep the self aggrandizement toned down a notch.
> 
> I did chuckle a bit when you claimed that you weren't sure I could understand "the way the law works", when you just went on a rant about how this won't be a law. Thanks for that.
> The folks you had lunch with don't sound like they are part of the action in the least, so their opinion is just that. I'm looking for 1st hand accounts of the real work being done.
> Until then, yes, all you have is assumption.


You love to argue, don't you? In doing so, you LIE. Now, *exactly* what did I present as a fact? Allow me to retrieve it for you:

"_So-called "assault weapons were legally owned prior to Clinton signing the ban were protected. That is a *FACT*_."

Those are my exact words and I stand behind them, sir. Is there anybody else on this board that would like to debate whether or not the above statement is exact and is a fact?

Now, here is another *FACT* for you:

In March of 2018, Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General working in the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT proposed banning bump stocks.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/atto...es-regulation-effectively-banning-bump-stocks

Here is another *FACT* for you:

"T_he Justice Department's proposed rule "would define 'machine gun' to include bump-stock-type devices under federal law - effectively banning them," Mr. Sessions said in a statement.

The proposed bump stock ban would defy the conclusion of Justice Department officials who have said that they could not, under existing law, stop the sales of bump stocks, accessories that allow semiautomatic guns to mimic automatic fire, and that congressional action was needed to ban them. *But Mr. Sessions said the department had worked around those concerns*._"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/us/politics/jeff-sessions-gun-violence-bump-stocks.html

So, pray tell, HOW IN THE HELL DID SESSIONS "_WORK AROUND_" THE EXISTING LAWS AS UNDERSTOOD NOT ONLY BY MYSELF BUT THE ATTORNEYS WITHIN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?

So, again, what I told you is a fact. Sessions plans on arguing in court that he does not legislate. He plans on arguing that the Constitution, on this issue (the prohibition on ex-post facto laws) applies to the *LEGISLATIVE* branch of government that passes laws.

Additional *FACTS* remain, sir:

The inventor of the bump stock said that the device does not change the functionality of the firearm. BATFE examined it and agreed. NOTHING has changed. So, the facts are, the Attorney General is about to use his power to illegally legislate a ban on a feature of a firearm simply because some people want to outlaw firearms on the installment plan. The ban has NOTHING to do with the functionality of the firearm.

Any idiot with an IQ above their shoe size can look at the *facts* and see that a liberal can and will use that precedent to outlaw other features as well. It's not a pie in the sky, baseless prediction. It is the method that court cases are fought and won in courtrooms every single day. And, obviously, that flies over your head. There is no "_assumption_" there at all sir. Past performance is a pretty good determinative factor in future performance. If you beat the Hell out of your wife and she divorces you, there is a probability that you will beat your second wife. Sorry, dude, but you are trying to operate out of your league.

Donald Trump is not God and he has no more respect for the Constitution than any other lying politician. It is only through vigilance and our own actions that keep politicians in line. If you prefer to be hoodwinked, you have every Right to be wrong. for the others, Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.


----------



## Gator Monroe

As the owner of 15 AR Platform Weapons and 5 AK/AKM platform Weapons I can honestly say I would never consider purchasing or utilizing a Give Away Bumpstock . That said I understand that creeping incrementalism grates on you guys . But Understand As I'm in California I'm slightly jaded and I understand that at least in my state THE DEMOCRATS are the bad actors as far as 2A/RTKBA goes ...


----------



## Kauboy

The Resister said:


> You love to argue, don't you? In doing so, you LIE. Now, *exactly* what did I present as a fact?


I called out the claim specifically in a post I made, but since you didn't write that post, you likely didn't read it.
Your words:


The Resister said:


> Adding insult to injury, there will be no _"pre-ban_" bump stocks as there would be IF Diane Frankenstein got enough support to outlaw them.


I even underlined it in the original post, but you must have missed that too.

Most of what you blathered on about had nothing to do with my original request for evidence on this single simple claim. What someone "says" has nothing to do with what a person "does". What Bill Clinton did in the past has no bearing on what will happen in the future. A news article is nothing more than a reporter's interpretation of a story. It too does not foretell the future as fact.
I can provide unconnected and useless facts too, and claim that what I am stating is also fact, if I wanted to hide a small claim that wasn't actually fact.
The sky is blue.
The grass is green.
Brett Kavanaugh will rape Elena Kagan upon confirmation to the Supreme Court.
The sun is hot.
Did I present enough verifiable facts for you to excuse and ignore the ones that can't be verified because they haven't happened yet? Doesn't matter, apparently, they're all *facts* because I said so.

The SINGULAR bit of information you've now provided that helps support your PREDICTION is the link to the DOJ page.
It provides a link to the actual "Notice of proposed rulemaking"(NPRM).
In that text, we find this:


> The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that "bump fire" stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are "machineguns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.
> _(explanation of the device's function)_
> With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. *The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the rule.*


I took the liberty of highlighting the offending portion, which I presume is where your prediction arises. (Since this is a proposition of rule changing, it is clearly *NOT existing fact*, as the rule change has not taken place yet.)

I went ahead and read the rest of the NPRM and found their reasoning to be a bit fuzzy, but nothing so striking as to claim that this will set precedent for future gun bans. Perhaps you've not actually read it yourself, but to think that a reclassifying of bump-stocks as machineguns, with the reasoning they've provided, can somehow escalate into banning all semi-automatic firearms is absurd and illogical. It would take an irrational leap, that would never hold up in court, to somehow cram a semi-automatic firearm into the definition of an automatic.

This isn't even the first time this EXACT same reclassification and similar reasoning has been used to change a previously "legal" device into a "machinegun". Did you speak up when they concluded the Akins Accelerator to be a machinegun? Did you panic and claim it would set precedent for banning all guns? This is literally the exact same thing.
They are essentially redefining terms. (yea, I know that can get hairy)
Originally, they redefined a "single function" of the trigger to mean that if it only took one action to "initiate an automatic firing cycle", that was sufficient to fall into the definition of a machinegun. This is why the Atkins device was reclassified.
Now, they are looking into the legal definition of "automatic"


> Specifically, ATF has determined that these devices initiate an "automatic[]" firing cycle sequence "by a single function of the trigger" because the device is the primary impetus for a firing sequence that fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger"


They even address comments provided to them, of which many members here have also brought up.
See below:


> Numerous persons commented that bump-stock-type devices do not fall under the statutory definition of "machinegun because, when attached, they do not change the mechanical functioning of a semiautomatic firearm, and still require a separate trigger pull for each fired round." They noted that bump firing is a technique, and pointed to many other ways in which a shooter can increase a firearm's rate of fire without using a bump-stock-type device.
> 
> The Department disagrees. The relevant statutory question is whether a particular device causes a firearm to "shoot... automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 26 U.S.C 5845(b). Bump firing and other techniques for increasing the rate of fire do not satisfy this definition because they do not produce an automatic firing sequence with a single pull of the trigger. Instead, bump firing without an assistive device requires the shooter to exert pressure with the trigger finger to re-engage the trigger for each round fired. The bump-stock-type devices described above, however, satisfy the definition. ATF's classification decisions between 2008 and 2017 did not reflect the best interpretation of the term "automatically" as used in the definition of "machinegun," because those decisions focused on the lack of mechanical parts like internal springs in the bump-stock-type devices at issue. The bump-stock-type devices at issue in those rulings, however, utilized the recoil of the firearm itself to maintain an automatic firing sequence initiated by a single pull of the trigger. As with the Atkins Accelerator, the bump-stock-type devices at issue cause the trigger to "bump" into the finger, so that the shooter need not pull the trigger repeatedly to expel ammunition. As stated above, the ATF previously focused on the trigger itself to interpret "single function of the trigger," but adopted a better legal and practical interpretation of "function" to encompass the shooter's activation of the trigger by, as in the case of the Akins Accelerator, and other bump-stock-type devices, a single pull that causes the weapon to shoot until ammunition is exhausted or the pressure on the trigger is removed. Because these bump-stock-type devices allow multiple rounds to be fired when the shooter maintains pressure on the extension ledge of the device, ATF has determined that bump-stock-type devices are machinegun conversion devices, and therefore qualify as machineguns under the GCA and NFA.


So, they are playing word judo, but seem to be within their legal purview.
They've done it before.
The Akins Accelerator was deemed a machinegun, and your concern about "ex post facto" implications didn't trigger much of a crisis then.
Is it fair? No.
Is it a constitutional violation? No, as no law is being passed.
As to whether any of this violates the 2nd Amendment, that too was addressed in the NPRM, and it was decided that Heller only claimed the 2nd protected things that were *not* "dangerous and unusual" and that were "in common use". So, they feel their bump stock decision would hold up in a court that respects the Heller decision.

Honestly, you should actually read the NPRM. You don't have to like it. (I certainly don't) But they aren't overstepping into any new area. They've done this before. And it can, in no way whatsoever, be misconstrued as setting any kind of precedent for future gun bans. Once the reasoning is understood and protocols are understood, you should realize that idea is ludicrous.

Good Lord, that got long. You folks don't know how much I love you guys. The NPRM pdf file didn't allow selecting and copying of text, so I manually typed out EVERY SINGLE QUOTE taken from that document. Any typos are my fault.
In hindsight, I could have downloaded it and run it through an OCR, but where's the fun typing training in that?
I hope I made Mavis Beacon proud.:vs_laugh:

And yes... I VERY MUCH like to argue. It is a personal character trait that I value, as it often reveals pompous individuals for their true selves when met with assertive resistance.
However, I DO NOT LIE.
I know what a "fact" is, and I know what a "fact" is not. Until an event has transpired, it cannot BY DEFINITION, be fact.


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> I called out the claim specifically in a post I made, but since you didn't write that post, you likely didn't read it.
> Your words:
> 
> I even underlined it in the original post, but you must have missed that too.
> 
> Most of what you blathered on about had nothing to do with my original request for evidence on this single simple claim. What someone "says" has nothing to do with what a person "does". What Bill Clinton did in the past has no bearing on what will happen in the future. A news article is nothing more than a reporter's interpretation of a story. It too does not foretell the future as fact.
> I can provide unconnected and useless facts too, and claim that what I am stating is also fact, if I wanted to hide a small claim that wasn't actually fact.
> The sky is blue.
> The grass is green.
> Brett Kavanaugh will rape Elena Kagan upon confirmation to the Supreme Court.
> The sun is hot.
> Did I present enough verifiable facts for you to excuse and ignore the ones that can't be verified because they haven't happened yet? Doesn't matter, apparently, they're all *facts* because I said so.
> 
> The SINGULAR bit of information you've now provided that helps support your PREDICTION is the link to the DOJ page.
> It provides a link to the actual "Notice of proposed rulemaking"(NPRM).
> In that text, we find this:
> 
> I took the liberty of highlighting the offending portion, which I presume is where your prediction arises. (Since this is a proposition of rule changing, it is clearly *NOT existing fact*, as the rule change has not taken place yet.)
> 
> I went ahead and read the rest of the NPRM and found their reasoning to be a bit fuzzy, but nothing so striking as to claim that this will set precedent for future gun bans. Perhaps you've not actually read it yourself, but to think that a reclassifying of bump-stocks as machineguns, with the reasoning they've provided, can somehow escalate into banning all semi-automatic firearms is absurd and illogical. It would take an irrational leap, that would never hold up in court, to somehow cram a semi-automatic firearm into the definition of an automatic.
> 
> This isn't even the first time this EXACT same reclassification and similar reasoning has been used to change a previously "legal" device into a "machinegun". Did you speak up when they concluded the Akins Accelerator to be a machinegun? Did you panic and claim it would set precedent for banning all guns? This is literally the exact same thing.
> They are essentially redefining terms. (yea, I know that can get hairy)
> Originally, they redefined a "single function" of the trigger to mean that if it only took one action to "initiate an automatic firing cycle", that was sufficient to fall into the definition of a machinegun. This is why the Atkins device was reclassified.
> Now, they are looking into the legal definition of "automatic"
> 
> They even address comments provided to them, of which many members here have also brought up.
> See below:
> 
> So, they are playing word judo, but seem to be within their legal purview.
> They've done it before.
> The Akins Accelerator was deemed a machinegun, and your concern about "ex post facto" implications didn't trigger much of a crisis then.
> Is it fair? No.
> Is it a constitutional violation? No, as no law is being passed.
> As to whether any of this violates the 2nd Amendment, that too was addressed in the NPRM, and it was decided that Heller only claimed the 2nd protected things that were *not* "dangerous and unusual" and that were "in common use". So, they feel their bump stock decision would hold up in a court that respects the Heller decision.
> 
> Honestly, you should actually read the NPRM. You don't have to like it. (I certainly don't) But they aren't overstepping into any new area. They've done this before. And it can, in no way whatsoever, be misconstrued as setting any kind of precedent for future gun bans. Once the reasoning is understood and protocols are understood, you should realize that idea is ludicrous.
> 
> Good Lord, that got long. You folks don't know how much I love you guys. The NPRM pdf file didn't allow selecting and copying of text, so I manually typed out EVERY SINGLE QUOTE taken from that document. Any typos are my fault.
> In hindsight, I could have downloaded it and run it through an OCR, but where's the fun typing training in that?
> I hope I made Mavis Beacon proud.:vs_laugh:
> 
> And yes... I VERY MUCH like to argue. It is a personal character trait that I value, as it often reveals pompous individuals for their true selves when met with assertive resistance.
> However, I DO NOT LIE.
> I know what a "fact" is, and I know what a "fact" is not. Until an event has transpired, it cannot BY DEFINITION, be fact.


What a bunch of blathering about *NOTHING*!

*YOUR CLAIM*: "_What Bill Clinton did in the past has no bearing on what will happen in the future_."

*THE FACTS*: My posting on that point was to show what happened when Clinton signed the Assault Weapon Ban versus what Sessions is proposing. Under the Assault Weapons Ban, if you owned a pre - ban weapon, it was considered legal. Under Sessions proposal, any bump stock that you *currently own* is illegal. I proved that AND explained what the difference is.

You've done nothing here except make the idiotic presupposition that I have not researched the subject matter. *NOTHING* you've said detracts from the facts. Precedent, "_Kauboy_" relies on the* most recent* actions / rulings, not those that may have happened in the distant past. If the people wanted bump stocks outlawed, they should have followed the correct procedure - legislation.

For Trump and Jeff Sessions to violate the Constitution just because somebody did something similar in the past does not justify the action. Two wrongs do not equal a right. If you like to argue, you should figure out first whether or not you have a point to argue. In this case, you most assuredly do not. Secondly, and most importantly, discussion boards that are not actual debate boards are too biased to allow a fair and credible "_debate_" to happen. If an admin or moderator's favorite is getting creamed, they step in and close threads or ban the guy who is making points that admin or moderator don't want publicized. In short, you're in the wrong forum for a debate.

I suspect that you won't go to a debate forum because then you would have to actually be held to the same standard as the person you were debating. The real reason you like to screw with folks on boards like this, is you can take advantage of the bias of those in charge. You think you have been appointed to expose those you think are pompous and arrogant, but you're here and loving to argue because this isn't a fair debate board and you can bully your way around. If you want to know who is pompous and arrogant, you need not go further than your own mirror. If you want to debate something, let's try a real debate board where there are rules to make it equal, fair and when you get your ass kicked, you don't have a buddy to jump in and save the day by forcing your opponent to face multiple side debates and risk censure.

Kauboy, IF what you accused me of was not a lie, there isn't a cow in Texas. If you want an argument, you should have enough decency to START your own debate / argument so that the rest of us can decide whether or not to participate. Hijacking threads for the mere purpose of making fallacious arguments is juvenile at best. I'm not into arguing. A wise man told me you cannot argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


----------



## The Resister

Gator Monroe said:


> As the owner of 15 AR Platform Weapons and 5 AK/AKM platform Weapons I can honestly say I would never consider purchasing or utilizing a Give Away Bumpstock . That said I understand that creeping incrementalism grates on you guys . But Understand As I'm in California I'm slightly jaded and I understand that at least in my state THE DEMOCRATS are the bad actors as far as 2A/RTKBA goes ...


There are no good guys in the gun fight. Both the Ds and the Rs are lying pieces of scatalogical waste. The state of California suggests that the people will not rise up and demand their Rights and no compromises. Trump blinked. If he had any common sense, he would have offered ways to address gun violence with gun control.


----------



## RubberDuck

All this bickering over a ammo wasting toy.
Sooner or later they were going to get something they can have the toy I'll keep the gun.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Kauboy

The Resister said:


> What a bunch of blathering about *NOTHING*!
> 
> *YOUR CLAIM*: "_What Bill Clinton did in the past has no bearing on what will happen in the future_."
> 
> *THE FACTS*: My posting on that point was to show what happened when Clinton signed the Assault Weapon Ban versus what Sessions is proposing. Under the Assault Weapons Ban, if you owned a pre - ban weapon, it was considered legal. Under Sessions proposal, any bump stock that you *currently own* is illegal. I proved that AND explained what the difference is.
> 
> You've done nothing here except make the idiotic presupposition that I have not researched the subject matter. *NOTHING* you've said detracts from the facts. Precedent, "_Kauboy_" relies on the* most recent* actions / rulings, not those that may have happened in the distant past. If the people wanted bump stocks outlawed, they should have followed the correct procedure - legislation.
> 
> For Trump and Jeff Sessions to violate the Constitution just because somebody did something similar in the past does not justify the action. Two wrongs do not equal a right. If you like to argue, you should figure out first whether or not you have a point to argue. In this case, you most assuredly do not. Secondly, and most importantly, discussion boards that are not actual debate boards are too biased to allow a fair and credible "_debate_" to happen. If an admin or moderator's favorite is getting creamed, they step in and close threads or ban the guy who is making points that admin or moderator don't want publicized. In short, you're in the wrong forum for a debate.
> 
> I suspect that you won't go to a debate forum because then you would have to actually be held to the same standard as the person you were debating. The real reason you like to screw with folks on boards like this, is you can take advantage of the bias of those in charge. You think you have been appointed to expose those you think are pompous and arrogant, but you're here and loving to argue because this isn't a fair debate board and you can bully your way around. If you want to know who is pompous and arrogant, you need not go further than your own mirror. If you want to debate something, let's try a real debate board where there are rules to make it equal, fair and when you get your ass kicked, you don't have a buddy to jump in and save the day by forcing your opponent to face multiple side debates and risk censure.
> 
> Kauboy, IF what you accused me of was not a lie, there isn't a cow in Texas. If you want an argument, you should have enough decency to START your own debate / argument so that the rest of us can decide whether or not to participate. Hijacking threads for the mere purpose of making fallacious arguments is juvenile at best. I'm not into arguing. A wise man told me you cannot argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


What "buddy" are you referring to that I apparently have in my back pocket?
Are you suggesting I have moderators on my side? Again, an accusation with ZERO proof.

*IF* this were taken to an actual debate forum, it would be on you to PROVE your facts. Since this event is only in the proposal phase, and the proposal even dictates "if the rule is consistent with this proposal", then this is clearly NOT something that can be classified as fact.
Thus, the debate would be over before it could start... on a board with "rules to make it equal".
I accused you of stating a fact that has not actually become rule, and is thus not a fact. That was NOT a lie.

Just because you look foolish here doesn't mean you have to make wild accusations about being picked on or that I have some kind of protector watching over me. 
What a clown you are for making such baseless claims. Your credibility is decreasing with each post.

The constitution is not being violated, since the constitution grants Congress the ability to pass law. They have passed laws delegating regulatory actions to various departments. In this case, that department falls under the Executive branch. The law allows for these regulatory entities to set statutory definitions. That is what they are doing, by executive request.
Is it a misuse of the language? Perhaps.
Has it been upheld in court time and time again? Yes.

Quit bitching about this discussion somehow being unfair. Nobody is going to ban you for having a discussion, regardless of whether they agree with what you say or not.
I would be the FIRST to vehemently oppose such an action, even against you.
Keep within the site guidelines, and you have nothing to fear. Can you do that?


----------



## The Resister

RubberDuck said:


> All this bickering over a ammo wasting toy.
> Sooner or later they were going to get something they can have the toy I'll keep the gun.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


The point is, you will only get to keep your gun temporarily. Gun control is implemented on an incremental basis. The history lesson about the Boston Tea Party was wasted on the right.


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> What "buddy" are you referring to that I apparently have in my back pocket?
> Are you suggesting I have moderators on my side? Again, an accusation with ZERO proof.
> 
> *IF* this were taken to an actual debate forum, it would be on you to PROVE your facts. Since this event is only in the proposal phase, and the proposal even dictates "if the rule is consistent with this proposal", then this is clearly NOT something that can be classified as fact.
> Thus, the debate would be over before it could start... on a board with "rules to make it equal".
> I accused you of stating a fact that has not actually become rule, and is thus not a fact. That was NOT a lie.
> 
> Just because you look foolish here doesn't mean you have to make wild accusations about being picked on or that I have some kind of protector watching over me.
> What a clown you are for making such baseless claims. Your credibility is decreasing with each post.
> 
> The constitution is not being violated, since the constitution grants Congress the ability to pass law. They have passed laws delegating regulatory actions to various departments. In this case, that department falls under the Executive branch. The law allows for these regulatory entities to set statutory definitions. That is what they are doing, by executive request.
> Is it a misuse of the language? Perhaps.
> Has it been upheld in court time and time again? Yes.
> 
> Quit bitching about this discussion somehow being unfair. Nobody is going to ban you for having a discussion, regardless of whether they agree with what you say or not.
> I would be the FIRST to vehemently oppose such an action, even against you.
> Keep within the site guidelines, and you have nothing to fear. Can you do that?


You genuinely need to *READ *this thread and quit blowing smoke up people's ass. You don't bother to prove every single statement you make and I damn sure will not - I don't care whether you are impressed or not. You're not the only swinging soul on this board and while you're trying to make us all safe from people you deem to be pompous, take a look in the freaking mirror, dude!


----------



## Denton

Anyone else find the humor in someone suggesting someone else loves to argue? :vs_laugh::vs_laugh::vs_laugh:


----------



## WhatTheHeck

Denton said:


> Anyone else find the humor in someone suggesting someone else loves to argue? :vs_laugh::vs_laugh::vs_laugh:


After reading through all that, yes, I found it mildly amusing.


----------



## Kauboy

The Resister said:


> You genuinely need to *READ *this thread and quit blowing smoke up people's ass. You don't bother to prove every single statement you make and I damn sure will not - I don't care whether you are impressed or not. You're not the only swinging soul on this board and while you're trying to make us all safe from people you deem to be pompous, take a look in the freaking mirror, dude!


I've read every word, and even took the time to read the full text of the NPRM you linked to, which you haven't bothered to do judging by your arguments.
I didn't ask you to prove every statement. Just one. Through your particular use of words, you ended up conceding that you were indeed making a speculative prediction of future events based on a PROPOSED rule change. When that rule goes into effect, assuming it is exactly as the proposal states, then you can happily claim it as "fact". Until then, it isn't.
I don't come here to be impressed. Not sure what that even means.
I also don't seek to keep anyone safe from pompous individuals. I just enjoy calling them out on it.
:encouragement:


----------



## Gator Monroe

The Resister said:


> There are no good guys in the gun fight. Both the Ds and the Rs are lying pieces of scatalogical waste. The state of California suggests that the people will not rise up and demand their Rights and no compromises. Trump blinked. If he had any common sense, he would have offered ways to address gun violence with gun control.


Ted Cruz is a Good Guy Sheila Jackson Lee is a Bad Guy , you are wrong .


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> I've read every word, and even took the time to read the full text of the NPRM you linked to, which you haven't bothered to do judging by your arguments.
> I didn't ask you to prove every statement. Just one. Through your particular use of words, you ended up conceding that you were indeed making a speculative prediction of future events based on a PROPOSED rule change. When that rule goes into effect, assuming it is exactly as the proposal states, then you can happily claim it as "fact". Until then, it isn't.
> I don't come here to be impressed. Not sure what that even means.
> I also don't seek to keep anyone safe from pompous individuals. I just enjoy calling them out on it.
> :encouragement:


Do you know what not telling the truth is? It's called a *LIE*. I said here are the facts in my opening posts. I did not ever say that a conclusion, based upon the application of the law is a fact. I don't think you know what lying is. You're so busy trying to bully me that you really do not read stuff. Furthermore, my conclusions are not based upon one single cite that you refused to acknowledge as being true.

If you want to know what I know, you need to get a legal education. I'm not willing to sit on my ass and argue with idiots while the left takes our Rights away on the installment plan. We have better things to do than pretend to be in a debate. Like I said, dude, anytime you want a debate, take it to a debate forum. I'll meet you there and then let pros decide whether you know what you're doing or not.

My guess is, you won't take the challenge. You know you're safe here and somebody will always have your back when you're getting schooled.


----------



## The Resister

Gator Monroe said:


> Ted Cruz is a Good Guy Sheila Jackson Lee is a Bad Guy , you are wrong .


Ted Cruz is a politician. I agree with a lot of what he says, but he is surrounded by shady characters:

https://thetruthsoldier.com/2016/02/23/ted-and-heidi-cruz-and-the-one-world-government-connection/

FWIW, I voted for Cruz in the primary. But, he is still a politician.


----------



## Kauboy

The Resister said:


> Do you know what not telling the truth is? It's called a *LIE*. I said here are the facts in my opening posts. I did not ever say that a conclusion, based upon the application of the law is a fact. I don't think you know what lying is. You're so busy trying to bully me that you really do not read stuff. Furthermore, my conclusions are not based upon one single cite that you refused to acknowledge as being true.
> 
> If you want to know what I know, you need to get a legal education. I'm not willing to sit on my ass and argue with idiots while the left takes our Rights away on the installment plan. We have better things to do than pretend to be in a debate. Like I said, dude, anytime you want a debate, take it to a debate forum. I'll meet you there and then let pros decide whether you know what you're doing or not.
> 
> My guess is, you won't take the challenge. You know you're safe here and somebody will always have your back when you're getting schooled.


Yes, I do know what telling the truth is.
I also know what a fact is.
You may understand ONE of these things, but not both, it seems.

If you're feeling bullied, you have no concept of what bullying means either. I'm refuting your statements. That is not bullying, my precious little snowflake friend.

Exactly which topic would you like to take to a debate forum? The one where you don't understand what a fact is? That's been my entire claim this whole time. You state something as FACT (there will be no "pre-ban" bump stocks) when the TRUTH is, that is a proposed rule, and not yet an approved rule. Therefore, it cannot be "fact" yet.
It doesn't take a debate forum or rules to address a simple logical fallacy.

If your "legal education", which you constantly fail to actually provide evidence of, is what has you spouting guesses as "fact", I don't want any part of it.

Again, who is it that "has my back"? Is this an actual claim, yet again with no evidence, or just a delusion you suffer from?

EDIT: Resister, brother... an olive branch needs extending, so here goes.
You and I are in FULL agreement that the PROPOSED rule change is the wrong way to go about this. While it may be "legal", insofar as a court has upheld it before, that doesn't make it "right".
My ENTIRE argument has been about calling this PROPOSAL a "fact", as if it has already been decided.
The truth is, we don't know what the final version will be. We know what they *want* it to be, but it isn't set in stone at this point.
If you would only understand where I'm coming from on this, I feel we would be in total agreement.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Thank you Kauboy for clearing up questions I had about this issue.
And, others should please notice that instead of speculation he actually used BATFE’s own words.

And one more thing he said that is important, until ink is put to paper, Government officials saying things are just words, not actions.
Since I am not a hysterical child, I will wait and see what will happen.


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> Yes, I do know what telling the truth is.
> I also know what a fact is.
> You may understand ONE of these things, but not both, it seems.
> 
> If you're feeling bullied, you have no concept of what bullying means either. I'm refuting your statements. That is not bullying, my precious little snowflake friend.
> 
> Exactly which topic would you like to take to a debate forum? The one where you don't understand what a fact is? That's been my entire claim this whole time. You state something as FACT (there will be no "pre-ban" bump stocks) when the TRUTH is, that is a proposed rule, and not yet an approved rule. Therefore, it cannot be "fact" yet.
> It doesn't take a debate forum or rules to address a simple logical fallacy.
> 
> If your "legal education", which you constantly fail to actually provide evidence of, is what has you spouting guesses as "fact", I don't want any part of it.
> 
> Again, who is it that "has my back"? Is this an actual claim, yet again with no evidence, or just a delusion you suffer from?
> 
> EDIT: Resister, brother... an olive branch needs extending, so here goes.
> You and I are in FULL agreement that the PROPOSED rule change is the wrong way to go about this. While it may be "legal", insofar as a court has upheld it before, that doesn't make it "right".
> My ENTIRE argument has been about calling this PROPOSAL a "fact", as if it has already been decided.
> The truth is, we don't know what the final version will be. We know what they *want* it to be, but it isn't set in stone at this point.
> If you would only understand where I'm coming from on this, I feel we would be in total agreement.


You've refuted nothing. You think that you are a legend in your mind. The proposal to outlaw bump stocks without regard to ex-post facto considerations *IS* a fact. Trump stated it *WILL* be passed - even before the public comments were considered. The fact is, there is *NOTHING* left to debate relative to the subject. The Rule, as written, does not acknowledge any constitutional prohibition on ex - post facto.

_"President Donald Trump suggested Monday, one year after the Las Vegas massacre, that bump-fire stocks would be banned "over the next couple of weeks_."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/trump-bump-fire-stocks/index.html

I'm sorry, sir. The regulation has been written. Trump won't even acknowledge that he might change his mind once the public comments have been considered... Hell, he's insinuating gun owners can go take a hike; their opinions won't count.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/trump-bump-fire-stocks/index.html

Unless Trump is a liar, I have given you the facts. The only prediction that I've made is, that once that happens, the liberals will be all over it the next time they capture the White House. I will bet you my house against yours if you want to put your money where your mouth is. BTW, my home is paid for.


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> Yes, I do know what telling the truth is.
> I also know what a fact is.
> You may understand ONE of these things, but not both, it seems.
> 
> If you're feeling bullied, you have no concept of what bullying means either. I'm refuting your statements. That is not bullying, my precious little snowflake friend.
> 
> Exactly which topic would you like to take to a debate forum? The one where you don't understand what a fact is? That's been my entire claim this whole time. You state something as FACT (there will be no "pre-ban" bump stocks) when the TRUTH is, that is a proposed rule, and not yet an approved rule. Therefore, it cannot be "fact" yet.
> It doesn't take a debate forum or rules to address a simple logical fallacy.
> 
> If your "legal education", which you constantly fail to actually provide evidence of, is what has you spouting guesses as "fact", I don't want any part of it.
> 
> Again, who is it that "has my back"? Is this an actual claim, yet again with no evidence, or just a delusion you suffer from?
> 
> EDIT: Resister, brother... an olive branch needs extending, so here goes.
> You and I are in FULL agreement that the PROPOSED rule change is the wrong way to go about this. While it may be "legal", insofar as a court has upheld it before, that doesn't make it "right".
> My ENTIRE argument has been about calling this PROPOSAL a "fact", as if it has already been decided.
> The truth is, we don't know what the final version will be. We know what they *want* it to be, but it isn't set in stone at this point.
> If you would only understand where I'm coming from on this, I feel we would be in total agreement.


Do you have some kind of personality disorder? How far do you want to stretch this out? You've been *UNABLE TO REFUTE* a single sentence that I have posted here.

Exactly what topic would "I" like to debate? Son, I'm not the one who enjoys arguing over nothing. This is *YOUR *argument, not mine.

The "*fact*" as I stated is that Trump promised that the rule would go into effect within weeks. Either he said so or he did not.

The *fact* is I said there is no provision to allow for pre - ban bump stocks as there would be IF Congress passed the legislation rather than having Jeff Sessions circumvent the law.

Calling me snowflake and other such bullshit IS bullying. You realize you can get away with it. Suppose you said that to me face to face in the state of Georgia. It could be interpreted as "_fighting words_" and, consequently a crime. When you do it anonymously on a discussion board, it is both cowardly AND bullying.

When it comes to my education, I don't see you providing any proof of yours. So, your ability to save the morons that follow you (presupposing any exist) from people you think are more pompous than you is definitely in question.

Your entire argument is fallacious, dishonest and pure bullshit. The rule has been written - that is a *FACT*. Trump has said that the bill will be implemented within weeks. That is a *FACT*. The rule criminalizes any bump stock you might own with no provision for the prohibition on ex-post facto laws. That is a *FACT*.

Throughout this thread I have maintained those facts, those alone and only those. Conclusions I've reached beyond that are plain old common horse sense.

Now, you go about playing your childish games. The difference between you and yours truly, I'm a doer, not a freaking troll, doing what he can to piss people off for chits and giggles. I work to make a difference. Instead of trying to rule the roost at prepperforums.net, I distribute information and lobby congresscritters in order to make a difference.

If that gets your panties in a wad, I apologize.


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> Anyone else find the humor in someone suggesting someone else loves to argue? :vs_laugh::vs_laugh::vs_laugh:


I'm glad you find it humorous. If we cannot be informative why shitcan the thread just because Kauboy demands an argument?


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> Thank you Kauboy for clearing up questions I had about this issue.
> And, others should please notice that instead of speculation he actually used BATFE's own words.
> 
> And one more thing he said that is important, until ink is put to paper, Government officials saying things are just words, not actions.
> Since I am not a hysterical child, I will wait and see what will happen.


That illustrates the difference between you and I. If the Titanic is taking on water faster than it can be pumped out, I'm not going to wait to see if it sinks. Preparation. Preparation. Preparation.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The Resister said:


> That illustrates the difference between you and I. If the Titanic is taking on water faster than it can be pumped out, I'm not going to wait to see if it sinks. Preparation. Preparation. Preparation.


No, son.
The difference between you and I is I saw more in the first 22 years of my life than you will ever see in the totality of your life.
I tend to prioritize, based on my life experiences.
At this moment, a mere mention of a possible ban on something as useless as a bump stock is so far down on my list as to be not even worth thinking about.

Have a nice night.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> I'm glad you find it humorous. If we cannot be informative why shitcan the thread just because Kauboy demands an argument?


Thanks. I find it to be a hoot!

That he has a different point of view doesn't mean he hijacked the thread.


----------



## Denton

rice paddy daddy said:


> No, son.
> The difference between you and I is I saw more in the first 22 years of my life than you will ever see in the totality of your life.
> I tend to prioritize, based on my life experiences.
> At this moment, a mere mention of a possible ban on something as useless as a bump stock is so far down on my list as to be not even worth thinking about.
> 
> Have a nice night.


He kind of has a point. We are where we are because we snoozed while "they" chipped away at our rights.
I have no use for a bump stock. I know some folks who have them and tell me I need one. I just smile and say sure, but I know I'll never have one. Auto-fire isn't my thing. Still, there should be no restrictions on our weapons.
In 1776, all weapons were "military grade."


----------



## Kauboy

The Resister said:


> You've refuted nothing. You think that you are a legend in your mind. The proposal to outlaw bump stocks without regard to ex-post facto considerations *IS* a fact. Trump stated it *WILL* be passed - even before the public comments were considered. The fact is, there is *NOTHING* left to debate relative to the subject. The Rule, as written, does not acknowledge any constitutional prohibition on ex - post facto.


*I* think I'm a legend? That's rich. Thanks for the laugh.

I can see why, with your "legal education", you're on an internet board and not in a courtroom. You can't grasp a simple thing, even when you state it outright in your own words.
_"The proposal to outlaw bump stocks without regard to ex-post facto considerations *IS* a fact."_
Nobody, not me, not another member, not Santa Clause himself has argued that a PROPOSAL doesn't exist.
What does NOT exist is a rule in the Federal Register with the same wording as the PROPOSAL.
As such, a future event that you have claimed, has not happened yet, and is therefore NOT a fact.
Words mean things. They should be used accurately.

It's as obvious as the nose on your face, and you are even tacitly admitting it, but you keep dancing around it.
I get that your pride won't let you admit that you misspoke. That's really too bad.

You are correct. The existing proposal does not address the ex post facto law restriction in the Constitution.
Since it is not addressed, we can only speculate as to the reason. One reason would be, no law is being passed. It seems to be a convenient loophole being taken advantage of, but how else can it be viewed? Congress granted regulatory powers to the BATFE. The BATFE has authority to define statutory regulations. The proposal does that.
There is a catch-22 involved here.
With the current proposal, bump-stock-type devices would become illegal by definition in a law that restricts ownership of the object of that definition, a "machinegun". The law which prohibits this item clearly states that no machinegun can be registered by an entity other than a manufacturer after the date that the law was enacted. Therefore, when a device is created that falls within the definition, it CANNOT be registered by a citizen legally. There would be no legal way for the BATFE to ban bump-stock-type devices with a statutory regulation and allow them to be kept by citizens. Doing so would cause citizens to immediately become felons.
Thus, their ONLY option is to state that the proposal rule will require existing devices to be destroyed, to avoid felonious activity.
Yeah, it's a convoluted issue.
Like you, I wish they would avoid the whole problem, and respond with a clear statement that this is a job for Congress. In doing so, we would be (hopefully) guaranteed the protections provided by the ex post facto law clause in Art.1 Sec.9.

However, since they have not yet shown an inclination to do so, AND they are not "passing a law", but are working within their legal powers previously granted by Congress, it has created the situation we find ourselves in now.

With the comment period closed, the only real way to address this will be in court AFTER (and *if*) the proposed rule goes into the Federal Register, and becomes effective.

For any who wish to view the comments that were submitted:
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0001-0001
Notice of Proposed Rule Making: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0002-0001

Resister, this is not a bait of any kind, and you can decline if you wish, but I would like to see how you presented your argument in your submitted comment. Since I know that a real name must be submitted when a comment is left, I understand if you do not want to provide your comment ID publicly, but I would appreciate a PM with the ID if you're willing. As a show of good faith, I would provide you with my name as well.
If you did not submit one, I understand that too. I didn't take the time to submit one myself, so I can't say anything with regards to that.

P.S.
As much as it might appear otherwise, I enjoy these exchanges (most of the time). It gets me back into my old college days where researching and learning a topic for hours was fun.
If I don't respond soon, it's because we are taking a vacation starting later today. A cruise in the gulf. :vs_box:
If this is still going on when I return in a week, I'll try to catch up and see what's happened.
Until then, everybody have a good one!


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Denton said:


> He kind of has a point. We are where we are because we snoozed while "they" chipped away at our rights.
> I have no use for a bump stock. I know some folks who have them and tell me I need one. I just smile and say sure, but I know I'll never have one. Auto-fire isn't my thing. Still, there should be no restrictions on our weapons.
> In 1776, all weapons were "military grade."


At the moment, as I understand it, nothing has been banned, no action toward a ban has been taken. Other than a few off hand words.
I agree that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the citizens right to have arms equal to that of any invading army, such as the British Red Coats.
Fully automatic weapons are legal, in most states, but legislation has been passed (1934 & 1986) that prohibit all but the most wealthy to own them.
The original colonists sometimes had cannon, as well. While a field piece may be legally owned, I'm not sure of the restrictions on projectiles.

However, I do not think a bump stock could be construed to be "military grade". Nor is it an "arm". It is merely a part.


----------



## inceptor

@Kauboy Well he's got ya. He linked CNN and we all know that if it's reported by CNN then it's gospel.



The Resister said:


> And if you asked my critics that didn't fare too well how accurate my predictions can be, they would have to grudgingly admit, yep the guy was right.


He's always right. If you don't believe that then ask him. He'll tell you its true.


----------



## Denton

rice paddy daddy said:


> At the moment, as I understand it, nothing has been banned, no action toward a ban has been taken. Other than a few off hand words.
> I agree that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the citizens right to have arms equal to that of any invading army, such as the British Red Coats.
> Fully automatic weapons are legal, in most states, but legislation has been passed (1934 & 1986) that prohibit all but the most wealthy to own them.
> The original colonists sometimes had cannon, as well. While a field piece may be legally owned, I'm not sure of the restrictions on projectiles.
> 
> However, I do not think a bump stock could be construed to be "military grade". Nor is it an "arm". It is merely a part.


The second amendment was for more than invading armies; it was also in case our own government went rogue.

Quite right, the wealthy of the towns owned the canons.

Again, you are correct in saying the bump stock is just a part and not the weapon. So is the trigger assembly. So is the magazine. I think you are on to something.


----------



## Annie

Kauboy said:


> As much as it might appear otherwise, I enjoy these exchanges (most of the time). It gets me back into my old college days where researching and learning a topic for hours was fun.
> If I don't respond soon, it's because we are taking a vacation starting later today. A cruise in the gulf. :vs_box:
> If this is still going on when I return in a week, I'll try to catch up and see what's happened.
> Until then, everybody have a good one!


Have a nice trip, Kauboy!


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> *I* think I'm a legend? That's rich. Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> I can see why, with your "legal education", you're on an internet board and not in a courtroom. You can't grasp a simple thing, even when you state it outright in your own words.
> _"The proposal to outlaw bump stocks without regard to ex-post facto considerations *IS* a fact."_
> Nobody, not me, not another member, not Santa Clause himself has argued that a PROPOSAL doesn't exist.
> What does NOT exist is a rule in the Federal Register with the same wording as the PROPOSAL.
> As such, a future event that you have claimed, has not happened yet, and is therefore NOT a fact.
> Words mean things. They should be used accurately.
> 
> It's as obvious as the nose on your face, and you are even tacitly admitting it, but you keep dancing around it.
> I get that your pride won't let you admit that you misspoke. That's really too bad.
> 
> You are correct. The existing proposal does not address the ex post facto law restriction in the Constitution.
> Since it is not addressed, we can only speculate as to the reason. One reason would be, no law is being passed. It seems to be a convenient loophole being taken advantage of, but how else can it be viewed? Congress granted regulatory powers to the BATFE. The BATFE has authority to define statutory regulations. The proposal does that.
> There is a catch-22 involved here.
> With the current proposal, bump-stock-type devices would become illegal by definition in a law that restricts ownership of the object of that definition, a "machinegun". The law which prohibits this item clearly states that no machinegun can be registered by an entity other than a manufacturer after the date that the law was enacted. Therefore, when a device is created that falls within the definition, it CANNOT be registered by a citizen legally. There would be no legal way for the BATFE to ban bump-stock-type devices with a statutory regulation and allow them to be kept by citizens. Doing so would cause citizens to immediately become felons.
> Thus, their ONLY option is to state that the proposal rule will require existing devices to be destroyed, to avoid felonious activity.
> Yeah, it's a convoluted issue.
> Like you, I wish they would avoid the whole problem, and respond with a clear statement that this is a job for Congress. In doing so, we would be (hopefully) guaranteed the protections provided by the ex post facto law clause in Art.1 Sec.9.
> 
> However, since they have not yet shown an inclination to do so, AND they are not "passing a law", but are working within their legal powers previously granted by Congress, it has created the situation we find ourselves in now.
> 
> With the comment period closed, the only real way to address this will be in court AFTER (and *if*) the proposed rule goes into the Federal Register, and becomes effective.
> 
> For any who wish to view the comments that were submitted:
> Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0001-0001
> Notice of Proposed Rule Making: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0002-0001
> 
> Resister, this is not a bait of any kind, and you can decline if you wish, but I would like to see how you presented your argument in your submitted comment. Since I know that a real name must be submitted when a comment is left, I understand if you do not want to provide your comment ID publicly, but I would appreciate a PM with the ID if you're willing. As a show of good faith, I would provide you with my name as well.
> If you did not submit one, I understand that too. I didn't take the time to submit one myself, so I can't say anything with regards to that.
> 
> P.S.
> As much as it might appear otherwise, I enjoy these exchanges (most of the time). It gets me back into my old college days where researching and learning a topic for hours was fun.
> If I don't respond soon, it's because we are taking a vacation starting later today. A cruise in the gulf. :vs_box:
> If this is still going on when I return in a week, I'll try to catch up and see what's happened.
> Until then, everybody have a good one!


I realize that you like to argue, but your B.S. borders on the brink of insanity.

Does a proposal to ban bump fire stocks exist? Yes or No?

Is it a fact that the proposal was submitted to the public? Yes or No

Has Donald Trump told the media that the proposed ban should be implemented in the next few weeks?

Now, son, regardless of whether you like it or not, the wording of that proposal *WILL NOT CHANGE*. It is not legislation subject to negotiation.

You are *LYING* when you tell people I said any more or any less regarding this subject.

To your credit you finally *ADMIT* that the only logical conclusion that would allow the ex - post facto prohibition to be circumvented is to point out that regulations issued by the executive department are not "_passing laws._" But, another important *FACT* remains:

BATFE had looked at the device and determined that it did NOT change functionality of the firearm. *FACT*: Nothing's changed. Bump stocks are being outlawed *NOT* on the basis of their functionality, but on their unpopularity. It will be an avenue that it does not take a Harvard grad to understand, *WILL BE* used by the liberals the next time they take power.

When I framed my objections to the proposed ban, you have my basic argument in this response. Other than a few cites made by the manufacturer AND what BATFE said *previously* when evaluating the functionality of the device, you know pretty much what I've stated. The mechanics of the device have *NOT* changed; the law has* NOT *changed. Bump stocks are being outlawed on the basis of their unpopularity.


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> @Kauboy Well he's got ya. He linked CNN and we all know that if it's reported by CNN then it's gospel.
> 
> He's always right. If you don't believe that then ask him. He'll tell you its true.


You criticize me while Kauboy makes the claim of himself you falsely accuse me of? You are bass ackwards.


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> No, son.
> The difference between you and I is I saw more in the first 22 years of my life than you will ever see in the totality of your life.
> I tend to prioritize, based on my life experiences.
> At this moment, a mere mention of a possible ban on something as useless as a bump stock is so far down on my list as to be not even worth thinking about.
> 
> Have a nice night.


Have you posted your DD214? Do you think you hold a monopoly on having witnessed human suffering? Do you think you're the only person on this earth that has witnessed death and carnage?

The condescending way you come off is probably popular here, but wouldn't fly around a group of vets in person. The way you like to brag all the time makes me come short of challenging you to post your military history. You know, despite the times I've been in courts; the times I've had to operate with my life on the line, I've not tried to imply it made me greater than someone who may not have had the same experiences.

But, bottom line here: When I mention things I did in my past, they should be under scrutiny only to the extent that those who have related their experiences are willing to "_prove it_." My personal feeling is that whether you have been involved in one major event so horrific that you won't share with others (because the average person would not get it) or 101, the experience can change your world view.

So, until you post all the proof of all your alleged exploits, we're pretty much on even ground.


----------



## hawgrider

^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> Thanks. I find it to be a hoot!
> 
> That he has a different point of view doesn't mean he hijacked the thread.


I did not say he hijacked the thread. I said he demanded an argument. What's the point, Denton? We come here every day and waste time arguing while the left is working their asses off to destroy us.

For what?

For me, all I have witnessed here is a continual pissing match. Everybody wants to try and prove the other to be a fake, phony, fraud, and a poseur. Where in the Hell is the unity? While we are beating the living Hell out of each other with words, the left is out there with a unified voice, holding us at bay, changing America incrementally.

Denton, from my experience, you're a guy that loves an echo chamber. What I like is a variety of opinions. And, instead, of pretending to be some kind of superhero saving the sheeple on prepperforums.net - like some of my critics, I prefer to bring the *FACTS* to the attention of those of like mind.

The *FACTS* of this case are very simple:

1) The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has proposed a ban on bump stocks, including existing ones

2) The President, Donald Trump, has stated the ban is going into effect within weeks

3) From what both men have said, the public input was merely a formality. Trump has said it is just a "_process_."

4) The bump stock was evaluated previously and is *NOT* a machine gun nor does it cause a weapon to become one

5) The real motive behind banning bump stocks is to appease the left because most of us don't have any use for a bump stock

Based upon those *FACTS*, it is not an illogical presupposition to expect the left will use the precedent in the future to ban features on firearms without regard to its actual mechanical functionality.

BTW, the tax wasn't so much of a big deal when the tea was tossed into the harbor.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> I did not say he hijacked the thread. I said he demanded an argument. What's the point, Denton? We come here every day and waste time arguing while the left is working their asses off to destroy us.
> 
> For what?
> 
> For me, all I have witnessed here is a continual pissing match. Everybody wants to try and prove the other to be a fake, phony, fraud, and a poseur. Where in the Hell is the unity? While we are beating the living Hell out of each other with words, the left is out there with a unified voice, holding us at bay, changing America incrementally.
> 
> Denton, from my experience, you're a guy that loves an echo chamber. What I like is a variety of opinions. And, instead, of pretending to be some kind of superhero saving the sheeple on prepperforums.net - like some of my critics, I prefer to bring the *FACTS* to the attention of those of like mind.
> 
> The *FACTS* of this case are very simple:
> 
> 1) The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has proposed a ban on bump stocks, including existing ones
> 
> 2) The President, Donald Trump, has stated the ban is going into effect within weeks
> 
> 3) From what both men have said, the public input was merely a formality. Trump has said it is just a "_process_."
> 
> 4) The bump stock was evaluated previously and is *NOT* a machine gun nor does it cause a weapon to become one
> 
> 5) The real motive behind banning bump stocks is to appease the left because most of us don't have any use for a bump stock
> 
> Based upon those *FACTS*, it is not an illogical presupposition to expect the left will use the precedent in the future to ban features on firearms without regard to its actual mechanical functionality.


Jiminy FREAKING Cricket, Jimmy! I catch Hell because I "protected" Jammer yet you say I love an echo chamber? That's pretty funny considering I've agreed with your general position in this thread. Even so, you are attempting to cross swords with me?

You aren't happy unless you are crossing swords with someone. This is my "experience" with you. This isn't just my "experience."

Now, start spewing about how a mod "threatened" you.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

My DD214 has been examined by the VFW, AmVets, American Legion and Vietnam Veterans of America .
In fact , I am presently an officer in all four organizations. 
And, I’d bet that if you ask any of my Brothers they would say I’m a nice guy.

As for you, I personally don’t care what you think.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

hawgrider said:


> ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^


Nah, I'm a pretty easy going guy.


----------



## inceptor

hawgrider said:


> ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^


Won't do any good. How many times has he been banned? And yet, he's still here.

It is an interesting study in pompous, self important and all knowing people. I'm just glad he's still in Georgia.


----------



## Steven

inceptor said:


> Won't do any good. How many times has he been banned? And yet, he's still here.
> 
> It is an interesting study in pompous, self important and all knowing people. I'm just glad he's still in Georgia.


hmm... where did I hear this before?


----------



## inceptor

Steven said:


> hmm... where did I hear this before?


What? Do you honestly think you're the only one?

You only do it part time. The Resister has made this an occupation.

I am amazed though that you found a couple of clips about you. Nice find. :vs_closedeyes:


----------



## Gator Monroe

Denton said:


> The second amendment was for more than invading armies; it was also in case our own government went rogue.
> 
> Quite right, the wealthy of the towns owned the canons.
> 
> Again, you are correct in saying the bump stock is just a part and not the weapon. So is the trigger assembly. So is the magazine. I think you are on to something.


Now the wealthy (usually Fudd types but not always ) own FN/Browning vintage Shotguns & Hunting Rifles so us regular types have to have 16 AR pattern Weapons and 5 AK/AKM weapons and decent HG collections to pick up the slack ...


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> Jiminy FREAKING Cricket, Jimmy! I catch Hell because I "protected" Jammer yet you say I love an echo chamber? That's pretty funny considering I've agreed with your general position in this thread. Even so, you are attempting to cross swords with me?
> 
> You aren't happy unless you are crossing swords with someone. This is my "experience" with you. This isn't just my "experience."
> 
> Now, start spewing about how a mod "threatened" you.


I asked a question some posts back. Didn't get an answer. Now you're claiming that a question = accusation?


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> Won't do any good. How many times has he been banned? And yet, he's still here.
> 
> It is an interesting study in pompous, self important and all knowing people. I'm just glad he's still in Georgia.


You DO own a mirror, don't you? Everybody that don't agree with you isn't pompous. Give it a freaking rest, dude. Aren't you what was known as the mixed multitude as they call it in the Bible? That was the modern version of democrats that want to silence anyone that don't toe the line on whatever the most popular line is.


----------



## The Resister

Steven said:


> hmm... where did I hear this before?


RESPONSE:


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> I asked a question some posts back. Didn't get an answer. Now you're claiming that a question = accusation?


You are tedious and not worth the time and effort. I have no idea about what question you are referring. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with what I said, being all the more reason why I find you tedious and not worth the effort. You are definitely not worth the time. While I might agree with you most of the time and it would appear we have studied a lot of the same things, I don't like you. I think your argumentative style does more harm than good. People don't learn from personalities like you.


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> You DO own a mirror, don't you? Everybody that don't agree with you isn't pompous. Give it a freaking rest, dude. Aren't you what was known as the mixed multitude as they call it in the Bible? That was the modern version of democrats that want to silence anyone that don't toe the line on whatever the most popular line is.


I was merely pointing out the obvious. Sorry you don't agree.

I don't want you silenced. When did I ever say that? You're quite entertaining. And occasionally you actually make a point that makes sense. Not often but occasionally.


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> RESPONSE:


See? Quite entertaining. :vs_laugh:

1. IF I had a little sister, if she didn't kick your ass I would have. Oh I know, being the head of a militia you're a badass. That would have made it much more entertaining back then.

2. Yes it shows you are at war. With everyone who doesn't agree.


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> You are tedious and not worth the time and effort. I have no idea about what question you are referring. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with what I said, being all the more reason why I find you tedious and not worth the effort. You are definitely not worth the time. While I might agree with you most of the time and it would appear we have studied a lot of the same things, I don't like you. I think your argumentative style does more harm than good. People don't learn from personalities like you.


People don't learn from your partisan style either. I don't agree with your style, but I do like you. Say what you like, but the fact that I don't let egotists screw with me keeps the mixed multitude clamoring to see what happens next. When I'm there, excitement follows. The Internet bullies with back slapping democrats and no class follow me around like a dog in heat.

I do for discussion boards what Hush Bimbo (Rush Limbaugh) does for talk radio.


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> See? Quite entertaining. :vs_laugh:
> 
> 1. IF I had a little sister, if she didn't kick your ass I would have. Oh I know, being the head of a militia you're a badass. That would have made it much more entertaining back then.
> 
> 2. Yes it shows you are at war. With everyone who doesn't agree.


In all honesty, WHO have I asked to agree with me on this thread? Do you really need a strawman argument in order to be relevant?


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> People don't learn from your partisan style either. I don't agree with your style, but I do like you. Say what you like, but the fact that I don't let egotists screw with me keeps the mixed multitude clamoring to see what happens next. When I'm there, excitement follows. The Internet bullies with back slapping democrats and no class follow me around like a dog in heat.
> 
> I do for discussion boards what Hush Bimbo (Rush Limbaugh) does for talk radio.


Ha! Tallk about an ego!
My "partisan style?" I suppose you'll next be calling me a blind Republican.


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> I was merely pointing out the obvious. Sorry you don't agree.
> 
> I don't want you silenced. When did I ever say that? You're quite entertaining. And occasionally you actually make a point that makes sense. Not often but occasionally.


You would die of boredom on this site if you didn't get to see what I'd say next when some people have to pull stuff out of their ass in order to remain relevant. Due to the fact that I'm right on ONE issue, those who are on the wrong side of Freedom and Liberty cannot get past it.

I'll tell you the way things are - not the way I want them to be. FWIW, I will have to take a guy to lunch over a bet that Kavanaugh would* not* get confirmed over a single vote... suddenly it went the other way and Kavanaugh *wins* by a single vote. I underestimated one female Senator and now wonder what the FBI learned.


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> I don't agree with your style, but I do like you. Say what you like, but the fact that I don't let egotists screw with me keeps the mixed multitude clamoring to see what happens next. When I'm there, excitement follows. The Internet bullies with back slapping democrats and no class follow me around like a dog in heat.
> 
> I do for discussion boards what Hush Bimbo (Rush Limbaugh) does for talk radio.


:vs_lol::vs_clap::vs_lol:

Ya know, you're so good you should have no trouble getting booked in Vegas.
@Denton, he likes you. He really likes you! :vs-kiss: Maybe you could be his manager and get him in Vegas. That could be lucrative for you. Then comes TV and movies. Damn, y'all could be rich and famous.


----------



## Steven

nevermind


----------



## inceptor

Steven said:


> nevermind


Ya did good. That was funny.


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> In all honesty, WHO have I asked to agree with me on this thread? Do you really need a strawman argument in order to be relevant?


Frankly I couldn't care less what your opinion of me is. It matters not.

Who have you asked? You don't ask, you demand. With a sledge hammer. I don't really disagree with much of what you say. It's your sledge hammer type of delivery that I find amusing.


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> Ha! Tallk about an ego!
> My "partisan style?" I suppose you'll next be calling me a blind Republican.


Are you a blind Republican? Honestly, I don't know what that means.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> Are you a blind Republican? Honestly, I don't know what that means.


Not hard to understand. A Republican who toes the line without question.


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> Frankly I couldn't care less what your opinion of me is. It matters not.
> 
> Who have you asked? You don't ask, you demand. With a sledge hammer. I don't really disagree with much of what you say. It's your sledge hammer type of delivery that I find amusing.


Well, if you don't care about what I think about you, then you should ignore me rather than comment about me.

The reason for the sledge hammer approach as you call it is that when I first came here, I had to tell some awful truths. They all proved true, BTW. Since then, the guys who think they are here to protect the sheeple - and admittedly, by their own words, try to call me out with *EVERY* post I put on this board. So, not only did I prove to be right on the issue where I have actual work experience, but none of those claiming to be the equivalent of God on this board acknowledged it. Hell, I didn't even expect an apology.

Kauboy started this pissing match. He did it with the intent to argue. I told him I did not want to argue. But, he persisted. If it were you being misrepresented, lied about and bullied, you'd either stand up for yourself or just get the crap kicked out of you. My critics like to pretend to be beating me up on the Internet because, to date, not a swinging soul among them has ever met me in a public venue. One public debate and this fun time would be *OVER* for them.


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> :vs_lol::vs_clap::vs_lol:
> 
> Ya know, you're so good you should have no trouble getting booked in Vegas.
> 
> @Denton, he likes you. He really likes you! :vs-kiss: Maybe you could be his manager and get him in Vegas. That could be lucrative for you. Then comes TV and movies. Damn, y'all could be rich and famous.


I was going to try and get on America's Got Talent. My wife asked me what I was going to do. I told her I couldn't decide whether to tell jokes or sing. She asked, "what's the difference?"


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> Kauboy started this pissing match. He did it with the intent to argue. I told him I did not want to argue. But, he persisted. If it were you being misrepresented, lied about and bullied, you'd either stand up for yourself or just get the crap kicked out of you. My critics like to pretend to be beating me up on the Internet because, to date, not a swinging soul among them has ever met me in a public venue. One public debate and this fun time would be *OVER* for them.


:vs_laugh: See, there ya go again. I read much of what you post because I like to laugh. Laughter brings joy.

I've been around here for a while and have never seen @Kauboy bully anyone. I read all of the exchange and his points were valid. You on there hand..............

I'm curious though. Was Biff Tannen based on you? That's kinda your style.


----------



## Denton

inceptor said:


> :vs_laugh: See, there ya go again. I read much of what you post because I like to laugh. Laughter brings joy.
> 
> I've been around here for a while and have never seen @Kauboy bully anyone. I read all of the exchange and his points were valid. You on there hand..............
> 
> I'm curious though. Was Biff Tannen based on you? That's kinda your style.


 @Kauboy bullied me, once. Made me cry.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Denton said:


> @Kauboy bullied me, once. Made me cry.


he stole my baseball glove and kicked my dog


----------



## The Tourist

When do the Federal Cassocks come for our 1/2-inch wide rubber bands?


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> :vs_laugh: See, there ya go again. I read much of what you post because I like to laugh. Laughter brings joy.
> 
> I've been around here for a while and have never seen @Kauboy bully anyone. I read all of the exchange and his points were valid. You on there hand..............
> 
> I'm curious though. Was Biff Tannen based on you? That's kinda your style.


I don't know who Biff Tannen is. Sorry, man. I don't get out much. Fact is, I just came back from the grocery store. They had Jimmy Dean's picture on a box of sausage. I thought it meant he was missing. My wife said he passed several years ago.


----------



## The Resister

Maine-Marine said:


> he stole my baseball glove and kicked my dog


He would never have done that to me. I play with myself with my glove hand and the dog bites. Stay with me and you'll begin to understand my rationale.


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> Not hard to understand. A Republican who toes the line without question.


That's a trick question then. You have Tea Party Republicans, Establishment Republicans, and the former Democrat Donald Trump. They don't all agree on a host of issues.

As if that isn't enough, we have zillions of social, political and other groups not to mention online communities with their own take. The *ONLY* reason the Democrats exist is that the Republicans are so divided.


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> I don't know who Biff Tannen is. Sorry, man. I don't get out much. Fact is, I just came back from the grocery store. They had Jimmy Dean's picture on a box of sausage. I thought it meant he was missing. My wife said he passed several years ago.


Internet searches are easy. You should be able to handle that.


----------



## Maine-Marine

The Resister said:


> I play with myself with my glove hand


DUDE... it is a family forum


----------



## The Resister

Maine-Marine said:


> DUDE... it is a family forum


You could never tell that by the number of arguments that are deliberately started on this forum. It would be more family oriented if the guys that delight in starting arguments would go to a debate forum as opposed to wanting a penis measuring contest every time I post a sentence.

They are one of the reasons I don't tell my family about this forum. A lot of them would like to discuss basic survival / prepper skills, but you have some dedicated trolls that want this to be an exclusive club here.


----------



## inceptor

Maine-Marine said:


> DUDE... it is a family forum


Well ya can't really fault him there. Some really strong language has been used in other threads too.


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> They are one of the reasons I don't tell my family about this forum. A lot of them would like to discuss basic survival / prepper skills, but you have some dedicated trolls that want this to be an exclusive club here.


Some of what you describe as trolling is nothing more than others calling you out.


----------



## RubberDuck

.









Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> Some of what you describe as trolling is nothing more than others calling you out.


They have *nothing* to call me out on. Reread this thread. What I presented as fact *IS* fact.

When I discussed another issue here, you might recall that what I predicted was *100 percent* proven right. My line of work was my line of work and it is now a matter people simply acknowledging the truth. Hint: Ain't gonna happen on this board.

Nobody has called me out on anything that has not been sufficiently responded to -* both accurately and honestly*... a point that you seem to ignore.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The Resister said:


> You could never tell that by the number of arguments that are deliberately started on this forum. It would be more family oriented if the guys that delight in starting arguments would go to a debate forum as opposed to wanting a penis measuring contest every time I post a sentence.
> 
> They are one of the reasons I don't tell my family about this forum. A lot of them would like to discuss basic survival / prepper skills, but you have some dedicated trolls that want this to be an exclusive club here.


And yet, you seem to be at the center of most.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> That's a trick question then. You have Tea Party Republicans, Establishment Republicans, and the former Democrat Donald Trump. They don't all agree on a host of issues.
> 
> As if that isn't enough, we have zillions of social, political and other groups not to mention online communities with their own take. The *ONLY* reason the Democrats exist is that the Republicans are so divided.


It wasn't a question, Hotshot (hat tip to Speed).
The Republican party is splintered. The RNC only gives lip service to the constitution. The Democrat party is outright anti-constitution. Kids aren't taught our real history or anything truthful about the constitution.

To be serious; am I partisan? You're damned skippy. So are you.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> They have *nothing* to call me out on. Reread this thread. What I presented as fact *IS* fact.
> 
> When I discussed another issue here, you might recall that what I predicted was *100 percent* proven right. My line of work was my line of work and it is now a matter people simply acknowledging the truth. Hint: Ain't gonna happen on this board.
> 
> Nobody has called me out on anything that has not been sufficiently responded to -* both accurately and honestly*... a point that you seem to ignore.


You forget that you have years of history on this forum. 
Thing about you and your approach, you'd be the last one to know if he'd been bested. Everyone knows that. You need to rethink your approach. Yeah, you have a few years on your bones and that makes reflection a tad hard, but you need to do that.
Arguing every nth degree while people are trying to digest the big stuff is stupid.


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> They have *nothing* to call me out on. Reread this thread. What I presented as fact *IS* fact.
> 
> When I discussed another issue here, you might recall that what I predicted was *100 percent* proven right. My line of work was my line of work and it is now a matter people simply acknowledging the truth. Hint: Ain't gonna happen on this board.
> 
> Nobody has called me out on anything that has not been sufficiently responded to -* both accurately and honestly*... a point that you seem to ignore.


:vs_lol:


----------



## Denton

inceptor said:


> :vs_lol:


He is a wealth of info, actually. He's just a dickhead.


----------



## inceptor

Denton said:


> He is a wealth of info, actually. He's just a dickhead.


I told him earlier I don't disagree with much he says. Sometimes he shows a sense of humor but those are rare.

But you are correct, he's a dickhead.


----------



## Denton

inceptor said:


> I told him earlier I don't disagree with much he says. Sometimes he shows a sense of humor but those are rare.
> 
> But you are correct, he's a dickhead.


I've been around a while. I can spot them. I used to be one, as a matter of fact. I expect better of him.


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> And yet, you seem to be at the center of most.


Yeah. That is true. I post on ANY subject and right away I become the subject of the thread. It's all sour grapes from those many years I stated something that was based upon my experiences AND the law. Turns out I was right. A few people could not accept it for what it was / is.

Not my fault, dude.


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> It wasn't a question, Hotshot (hat tip to Speed).
> The Republican party is splintered. The RNC only gives lip service to the constitution. The Democrat party is outright anti-constitution. Kids aren't taught our real history or anything truthful about the constitution.
> 
> To be serious; am I partisan? You're damned skippy. So are you.


You're partisan when it comes to people. You, yourself, said you didn't like me. But, Denton, what people say to me on these boards, if done face to face where I live, it would constitute a crime AND it would justify defending yourself.

I don't have anything against the posters on this board. I would not post the information if I did not think someone would use it. The Keyboard Commandos that like starting whizzing contests are your real problem. The ONLY thing they've proven since I've been here is that there are a lot of people who had rather play games than to solve problems by understanding the problem and approaching it as a unified community.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The Resister said:


> Yeah. That is true. I post on ANY subject and right away I become the subject of the thread. It's all sour grapes from those many years I stated something that was based upon my experiences AND the law. Turns out I was right. A few people could not accept it for what it was / is.
> 
> Not my fault, dude.


:vs_lol::vs_lol::vs_lol::vs_lol:


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> Yeah. That is true. I post on ANY subject and right away I become the subject of the thread. It's all sour grapes from those many years I stated something that was based upon my experiences AND the law. Turns out I was right. A few people could not accept it for what it was / is.
> 
> Not my fault, dude.


This reminds me of when I attended the Army's alcohol abuse class back in the 80's. Every single one of us blamed everything and everyone, but none of us would contemplate we might be at fault.


----------



## Slippy

Sociologically speaking, this is AWESOME stuff.

What sets those who believe in American Exceptionalism apart from those who believe in Socialism is that those who believe in Socialism are willing to follow those around by their nose ring and do what they are told...for the "good" of the people. Or so they are told to believe.

Those that believe in American Exceptionalism actually BELIEVE they are RIGHT. 

Even if it means nit-picking those with similar beliefs but have tiny, min-ute differences.

God Bless This Once Great Republic and the FOOLS who make/made it so...:vs_smile:


----------



## Slippy

Denton said:


> This reminds me of when I attended the Army's alcohol abuse class back in the 80's. Every single one of us blamed everything and everyone, but none of us would contemplate we might be at fault.


Speaking of Abusing Alcohol...

I am well on my way to doing so today...Football, NASCAR and Slippy's Famous Gluten Free Pasta and Sauce...DEE-LISH-US! :vs_wave:


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> This reminds me of when I attended the Army's alcohol abuse class back in the 80's. Every single one of us blamed everything and everyone, but none of us would contemplate we might be at fault.


So, if I'm looking at statutes, rulings, policies and also studying the attitude of the judiciary AND I know what they are going to do, tell me again how it's my fault if they do what I already know what they are going to do?

Did you ever stop to think that if people who *pretended* to care about these issues were actually behind me instead of arguing, we might look like a unified community and people like me *might* (not saying would) but might be able to impact the bottom line?

What you seem to forget and ignore is that I took a substantial amount of B.S. over a certain issue. It culminated with have my home shot into while I was there, the family cat killed, character assassination, people hacking my computer and people running scams on me 24 / 7 when I was more constitutionalist minded than they were, but punished just because I criticized their *strategies and proposed solutions* over a *single* issue.

And, how did it work out, Denton?

Being right don't mean squat and holding your ground until the matter has been decided has not helped me to earn respect. No, in order to be accepted in some circles, you have to go along to get along. FWIW, I want to share with you what a Lt. Colonel shared with me some years ago.

When I was a kid, the Nicaraguans were having a little war. The U.S. sent people in to "_observe and provide humanitarian services_." In this instance, some of the supporters of Somoza overtook a contingent of soldiers that were fighting against them. According to the Lt. Colonel, the Somoza regime cut the leader of the team's testicles out. He lived. And when that guy came back, he was more committed and more committed than previously.  Moral: It IS not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. According to the story (and I have no reason to think we were being lied to) Somoza's men never slept when they anywhere in the vicinity of the guy they castrated.

In an abstract way, that is how the right has devolved. So, when the left fights back, they will do so with a vengeance. The wiser course of action is when you prevail, you do so respectfully. Put into political terms: Republicans would be better off not giving the Democrats a reason to show up at the polls. If they don't vote, they won't count. As long as they think everything is going their way, despite not having all Ds in power, they don't care. The right hasn't yet got the message. There will be a tomorrow; the pendulum will swing against you. The issue is, are you planning to be humiliated and treated with disdain OR will the public be, like so what, and not be in a hurry to tie the Rs to the stake and burn them?


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Sociologically speaking, this is AWESOME stuff.
> 
> What sets those who believe in American Exceptionalism apart from those who believe in Socialism is that those who believe in Socialism are willing to follow those around by their nose ring and do what they are told...for the "good" of the people. Or so they are told to believe.
> 
> Those that believe in American Exceptionalism actually BELIEVE they are RIGHT.
> 
> Even if it means nit-picking those with similar beliefs but have tiny, min-ute differences.
> 
> God Bless This Once Great Republic and the FOOLS who make/made it so...:vs_smile:


So, you think it's wrong to believe in American Exceptionalism? I hear that bandied about, but not sure most people know exactly what it once meant. We could recapture it.


----------



## Slippy

The Resister said:


> So, you think it's wrong to believe in American Exceptionalism? I hear that bandied about, but not sure most people know exactly what it once meant. We could recapture it.


Serious question, are you a retard? After reading my post and then asking that question leads me to believe that you have extreme difficulty in reading comprehension.

Your inability to get along with most people on this forum is a direct result of typical sociopathic behavior.


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> So, you think it's wrong to believe in American Exceptionalism? I hear that bandied about, but not sure most people know exactly what it once meant. We could recapture it.


Maybe its attitude, I'm not sure. When I read his post I got that he believed in American Exceptionalism. But that's just me. :tango_face_grin:


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Serious question, are you a retard? After reading my post and then asking that question leads me to believe that you have extreme difficulty in reading comprehension.
> 
> Your inability to get along with most people on this forum is a direct result of typical sociopathic behavior.


Are you a retard? Are "_most_" people on this board indicative of half a dozen daily posters? Hell, I have fifteen posters on a discussion board that lurk daily, but never post. So, "_most_" of the people on this board are the half dozen that think the rest of you are such morons that they *HAVE* to argue with people on a daily (that is the own admission by the one who set this conversation in motion)??? And, because I don't see the need for the constant bickering, somehow "_I_" can't get along with "_most_" of you on this board. Is *THAT* your story?

I'd like to inquire of your degrees in psychology and psychiatry? Or are you just blowing smoke and trying to insult me?


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> Maybe its attitude, I'm not sure. When I read his post I got that he believed in American Exceptionalism. But that's just me. :tango_face_grin:


I have a few grammar books on the shelf next to me.  After checking, that post could be taken two different ways. I have this sneaking suspicion that the people who *start* these endless arguments are disinformation artists that do not believe in American Exceptionalism. So, to prove it to themselves - and to prevent progress, personality contests are started on these boards and the half dozen daily posters who feel the need to control the politics of the board create an atmosphere that is antithetical to productive conversations.

This thread has gone on now for over a hundreds posts, most of which have nothing to do with the OP. And, what exactly were we arguing about? *NOTHING* has refuted what I presented as the facts. A couple of times the critics who swear and be damned that I'm to blame have admitted we are on the same side of the issue, but they were the ones who initiated the argument. Somehow, the people worried about controlling the board are trying to say it's my fault I cannot get along with the "_majority_" - as if half a dozen of you are the majority... but, then again maybe you only have six people here and a hell of a lot of sock-puppets.

I do believe in American Exceptionalism. But, we are allowing those who are *NOT* very exceptional steer the boat. These daily arguments don't have to happen. The topics that I put on the boards are not just merely opinions I hold, but things I work at on a regular basis. I'm the guy wining and dining state legislators. I tell them that I know (from having managed political campaigns at the state level) that they spend $6 to $8 in advertising per vote and yet a single letter to the federal legislators in their area written by a state legislator would not only help the cause, but get a solid base of pro-gun voters. How much of a cost would they incur for such an act?

American Exceptionalism has devolved into us having more people in prison than any nation on the planet; Americans consuming over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we're do divided in ideology that the Democrats only trail the Republicans by a couple of percentage points most of the time. In reality, if you had your excrement together, Democrats would not exist. The United States Supreme Court is still solidly Jesuit - Catholics and Jews with not one single, solitary White Anglo Saxon Protestant male on the high Court.

Yeah, you have a little semblance of power - by only a couple of percentage points with *MILLIONS* of Hispanics turning voting age each year. It does not take a degree from Harvard or Yale to figure this stuff out. There is no gain to being divisive and then having the little clique groups blame it on people like me. Step up, man up and get your heads out of your ass. Those of you wanting a whizzing contest with me are *NOT* the majority (unless each of my critics has several accounts here each) on this board *NOR* a majority of the sentiment of the American voters. You simply like having control and a couple of guys got butt hurt over another issue. Those critics having lost, and lost very soundly don't need to travel down that road again. So, now, even when we are in agreement over gun control, one on YOUR side of the board politics admitted to starting an argument with me. And somehow, I'm obligated to allowing a guy with a Texas sized ego push me around or we can't get along. How childish can you guys get!


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> Yeah, you have a little semblance of power - by only a couple of percentage points with *MILLIONS* of Hispanics turning voting age each year. It does not take a degree from Harvard or Yale to figure this stuff out. There is no gain to being divisive and then having the little clique groups blame it on people like me. Step up, man up and get your heads out of your ass. Those of you wanting a whizzing contest with me are *NOT* the majority (unless each of my critics has several accounts here each) on this board *NOR* a majority of the sentiment of the American voters. You simply like having control and a couple of guys got butt hurt over another issue. Those critics having lost, and lost very soundly don't need to travel down that road again. So, now, even when we are in agreement over gun control, one on YOUR side of the board politics admitted to starting an argument with me. And somehow, I'm obligated to allowing a guy with a Texas sized ego push me around or we can't get along. How childish can you guys get!


The only power I have is over me. It seems to me that you have a serious case of cranial/rectal inversion. Texas sized ego, this from a guy who has an ego the size of Jupiter. And talk about childish, I give my interpretation of a post and you throw a temper tantrum. :vs_laugh:

It seems to me that you get butt hurt over the slightest disagreement. And you take that disagreement as an attack. So no disagreements are allowed when it comes to you? Yeah, there are a few others like that here. I'm not part of a clique but there are people here who's opinions I agree with. Most here are good people from newbies to old timers. A few are contentious a lot but they are the minority. A few, like you and one other comes easily to mind, get all butt hurt over the slightest disagreement. I have stated that I don't disagree with a good part of what you say. But using a sledge hammer delivery doesn't work on me. So when I disagree with that style makes me a bad guy? I'm not part of the majority, at least I don't think so and I have no idea what a sock puppet is other than a kids toy. Yes I have met a few people on this board. They are rarely on here now though but they are some fine folks. We spend a weekend together and had a great time. You were around then and it was an open invitation but you didn't respond nor show up.

Mostly though I find you entertaining. Someone comments on something you say and you go ballistic. :vs_lol:

No I don't hobnob with politicians. I do what I can while trying to keep a low profile. The demise of this country has been planned and orchestrated by powerful people with the money to make it happen. They have been working at this since the time of Lincoln. In the 20th century they seem to have gained a foothold and have been pushing that and gaining significant ground. I have neither the money nor the power to fight that.


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> The only power I have is over me. It seems to me that you have a serious case of cranial/rectal inversion. Texas sized ego, this from a guy who has an ego the size of Jupiter. And talk about childish, I give my interpretation of a post and you throw a temper tantrum. :vs_laugh:
> 
> It seems to me that you get butt hurt over the slightest disagreement. And you take that disagreement as an attack. So no disagreements are allowed when it comes to you? Yeah, there are a few others like that here. I'm not part of a clique but there are people here who's opinions I agree with. Most here are good people from newbies to old timers. A few are contentious a lot but they are the minority. A few, like you and one other comes easily to mind, get all butt hurt over the slightest disagreement. I have stated that I don't disagree with a good part of what you say. But using a sledge hammer delivery doesn't work on me. So when I disagree with that style makes me a bad guy? I'm not part of the majority, at least I don't think so and I have no idea what a sock puppet is other than a kids toy. Yes I have met a few people on this board. They are rarely on here now though but they are some fine folks. We spend a weekend together and had a great time. You were around then and it was an open invitation but you didn't respond nor show up.
> 
> Mostly though I find you entertaining. Someone comments on something you say and you go ballistic. :vs_lol:
> 
> No I don't hobnob with politicians. I do what I can while trying to keep a low profile. The demise of this country has been planned and orchestrated by powerful people with the money to make it happen. They have been working at this since the time of Lincoln. In the 20th century they seem to have gained a foothold and have been pushing that and gaining significant ground. I have neither the money nor the power to fight that.


You are now projecting. You really need to *READ* this thread.

This thread, where I stepped into the door, had exactly *nothing* to do with any disagreement. I was falsely accused of something I absolutely *DID NOT* do and the back and forth - even with other posters has not subsided since. So, what you're doing is accusing me of being butt hurt, when, as a point of *FACT*, you're now hinting at ancient history to build a case you cannot sustain.

I don't recall of anything here I've been invited to, but everyone here is invited to each every public meeting I'm at - especially those I organize on my own dime. I do plan on helping start a church - now it's down to weeks (and I'm hoping before Thanksgiving.) We can talk about the same stuff (i.e. Liberty as it pertains to the Word of God) and maybe get a sensible discussion there.

The battle between good and evil started with in the Garden of Eden and God told Eve he would put enmity (hatred, warfare, variance) between the seed of the serpent (Satan) and Eve's seed. Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter that "_The natural progress of things is for Liberty to yield and government to gain ground_." When you factor in Tytler's Cycle of History our position in time and history is pretty clear:

Bondage
Spiritual Faith
Courage
Liberty
Abundance
Selfishness
Complacency
Apathy
Dependence
Then starting over with Bondage

The Tytler Cycle | Common Sense Government

The only thing that doesn't play out precisely, as I understand it, Tytler was presuming that we were a democracy. We aren't. Still, history is cyclical. Yet, in every generation there is a resistance to the forces of evil. You cannot fight evil AND fight your brethren. *THAT* is my message to you.

I don't mind that the wounds of the past keep getting brought up because I want you to understand that even with government infiltrators and even with people not only threatening me, but putting my life in danger - yeah, I get defensive. What would you do if it were YOUR family that got threatened? What would you do if it were YOUR home that got shot into? What would YOU do if someone killed the family pet? What would YOU do if someone hacked your computer and destroyed your information on a routine basis? Then, imagine that the people who *should be* on your side were backing the cowards that did all that?

The people who come here for an argument when there are debate forums available are of no more use to you than tits on a boar hog. The critic who started the current back and forth *admitted on this thread* he liked to argue. I don't and I don't think that I should be penalized for not wanting to argue when, by even the words of many of my critics, they agree with me on many issues.

Every one of you has much more power than you realize. But, the right has been programmed, Pavlovian style, to believe they hang on by a thread with defeat being inevitable. I've been proving them wrong for decades. For example, you don't have one vote in a Republic - you have THREE. Furthermore, if the strategies of the liberals work, employ them. We aren't Chinese (most of us aren't) yet we will Read Sun Tzu's Art of War and claim they are good fighting strategies.

The only time the right employs the tactics of the left against others, it is when they use them against the own brethren! If you guys spent as much time fighting the left as you do people like me, you'd have won the freaking war a couple of decades ago. You cannot win over me as I am a servant of God. When the appointed time comes, the big money powers will fall as fast as the Berlin Wall did. No matter how many Covenants and agreements you enter into, thinking the big money guys are pulling the strings, you will continue to lose because you are on the wrong side of history and the real solutions.


----------



## The Tourist

Oh, I like to read your posts. But Annie and Cricket never warned me I had to respond.

What aspect of your thesis do you wish me to correct?


----------



## The Resister

The Tourist said:


> Oh, I like to read your posts. But Annie and Cricket never warned me I had to respond.
> 
> What aspect of your thesis do you wish me to correct?


Present your own. Negativity does nothing for civil discourse.


----------



## inceptor

The Tourist said:


> Oh, I like to read your posts. But Annie and Cricket never warned me I had to respond.
> 
> What aspect of your thesis do you wish me to correct?





The Resister said:


> Present your own. Negativity does nothing for civil discourse.


Interpretation. No disagree allowed. It's considered hate speech.


----------



## Steven

The Resister said:


> ... with *MILLIONS* of Hispanics turning voting age each year. It does not take a degree from Harvard or Yale to figure this stuff out. There is no gain to being divisive and then having the little clique groups blame it on people like me. Step up, man up and get your heads out of your ass. Those of you wanting a whizzing contest with me are *NOT* the majority (unless each of my critics has several accounts here each) on this board *NOR* a majority of the sentiment of the American voters. You simply like having control and a couple of guys got butt hurt over another issue. Those critics having lost, and lost very soundly don't need to travel down that road again. So, now, even when we are in agreement over gun control, one on YOUR side of the board politics admitted to starting an argument with me. And somehow, I'm obligated to allowing a guy with a Texas sized ego push me around or we can't get along. How childish can you guys get!


Not sure what I just walked into but... If your talking about the hispanics illegals who are now starting to vote and which they overwhelmingly vote democratic.. Yea, it's a major concern for the republican rule. As a result we have to start deporting them faster Trump is doing a good job, but they keep comming in. Our nation is already lost to the democratic party. It's going to be a one nation state IF we can't keep deporting them. I think the dems know this and are trying to stall and buy more and more time. It's a very concerning issue and if it's not resolved the republican party will have it's power dry up faster than Slut-Ford's memory.


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> Interpretation. No disagree allowed. It's considered hate speech.


"_If you have no opposition in the place you serve, you're serving in the wrong place_." Rev. G. Campbell Morgan


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> "_If you have no opposition in the place you serve, you're serving in the wrong place_." Rev. G. Campbell Morgan


"If you come across as a continuous asshole, nobody will hear your words of wisdom."
Denton


----------



## The Resister

Steven said:


> Not sure what I just walked into but... If your talking about the hispanics illegals who are now starting to vote and which they overwhelmingly vote democratic.. Yea, it's a major concern for the republican rule. As a result we have to start deporting them faster Trump is doing a good job, but they keep comming in. Our nation is already lost to the democratic party. It's going to be a one nation state IF we can't keep deporting them. I think the dems know this and are trying to stall and buy more and more time. It's a very concerning issue and if it's not resolved the republican party will have it's power dry up faster than Slut-Ford's memory.


Since you don't know what you've walked into, we won't waste time restarting it. It only brings in Club Fed and they've been trying to take me for almost four decades. So, it's not important unless you want to discuss it in PM.

This thread was about one person jumping on me as if I had sex with his 10 year old daughter over his inability to differentiate between what I said is a *fact* and what ended up as a conclusion. Everything else is immaterial. The side show where grown men are jumping my back over ancient history because I did not allow their board spokesman walk on me is irrelevant. They simply need something to bitch about because, the truth is, they've been about as effective as a eunuch in a brothel.

What I have to say will only reach the serious and the people who want to protect, preserve and defend what is left of the Republic and try to leave the next generation some semblance of the Liberties and Freedoms we enjoyed. Instead, you have a handful of people that sound like a half dozen 85 year old women in a nursing home bitching because they got butt hurt. The only way they feel good about it is a tag team effort to rekindle old arguments and roll them into this one.

This thread has *NOTHING* to do with whether or not I'm right or wrong. It had to do with a guy making a false allegation about me personally and then *admitting* he liked to argue about it. I did not come here to argue with him. I came here to warn against the long term ramifications about sitting on your butt while the enemies of America are destroying it. The site claims to be a "_prepper_" site, but the guys wanting to pretend they are fighting a war against me aren't prepared for an attack by a group of determined Cub Scouts and a couple of them would starve to death if they got locked in a fully stocked grocery store. They want to be nasty and then complain because I'm challenging them to tone it down and be civil.

They will have none of that and quite frankly, I am *NOT* their bitch. While they hide in their bedrooms, pecking their keyboards, I'm knocking on doors and talking to decision makers on a daily basis - face to face, nose to nose and toe to toe. I don't back down and think it's childish to keep a running whizzing contest just over a personality contest based upon the FACT the last issue they "_banned_" me over was one where I was proven to be more than right. It's just that issue is irrelevant here and we should be talking about bump stocks - not the petty problems that immature people have with me that (IF THEY WERE MATURE) would best be resolved in PM.

But, they love the circus atmosphere and that belief that if enough people believe in a lie, they win by majority rule... fans of Hitlery, down to a a - unfortunately we can't say man.


----------



## inceptor

The Resister said:


> "_If you have no opposition in the place you serve, you're serving in the wrong place_." Rev. G. Campbell Morgan


But you HATE opposition. You've stated yourself that you regard opposition as a personal attack. :vs_lol:


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> "If you come across as a continuous asshole, nobody will hear your words of wisdom."
> Denton


There is nothing that I can say that sways those who guard this board as if it were their daughter's cherry. My "words of wisdom" are those conclusions which have proven to be true. If the clique group chooses to deny it, denigrate it, marginalize it or try to humiliate me over it, there will *always be the few* that see through that beyond that veneer of we're right because we're the majority and examine the facts.

You think I'm an asshole? I think those who say crap on this board they won't say to a person's face are too. So, at least we're even.


----------



## The Resister

inceptor said:


> But you HATE opposition. You've stated yourself that you regard opposition as a personal attack. :vs_lol:


Inceptor, you can tell more lies than your favorite politician, Hillary Clinton. I do not believe that opposition is a personal attack until the facts have been put on the table and those, like yourself, are too chickensh!+ to allow the other posters to weigh the evidence and make their own minds up. When it becomes a half dozen or so of the same old posters wanting to drag *EVERY* topic into one thread in order to justify making idiotic, ridiculous and inane allegations that I consider it a personal attack.

For example, this thread is about bump stocks. How do you justify making asinine statements about me on this thread that have nothing to do with the posts I put up regarding bump stocks? All the other B.S. you keep harping on don't have squat to do with the times you got mad because I *AM* right about the right's proposed solutions to some issues. But, just because I was and am right there, it has *NOTHING* to do with this thread.

*ANYTHING* that is on this thread that strays away from bump stocks in a vain effort to denigrate me *IS* a personal attack. It has no relevance here. The thing for you is, if we agree on 99 out of 100 issues, you will not let it go. The one time we disagree and you lose is the only thing that is relevant. If you found something I've said about bump stocks to be in error, that is relevant to this thread. Anything other than that on this thread is purely personal.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> There is nothing that I can say that sways those who guard this board as if it were their daughter's cherry. My "words of wisdom" are those conclusions which have proven to be true. If the clique group chooses to deny it, denigrate it, marginalize it or try to humiliate me over it, there will *always be the few* that see through that beyond that veneer of we're right because we're the majority and examine the facts.
> 
> You think I'm an asshole? I think those who say crap on this board they won't say to a person's face are too. So, at least we're even.


Please, respond with some lengthy drivel.


----------



## Steven

The Resister said:


> Since you don't know what you've walked into, we won't waste time restarting it. It only brings in Club Fed and they've been trying to take me for almost four decades. So, it's not important unless you want to discuss it in PM.
> 
> This thread was about one person jumping on me as if I had sex with his 10 year old daughter over his inability to differentiate between what I said is a *fact* and what ended up as a conclusion. Everything else is immaterial. The side show where grown men are jumping my back over ancient history because I did not allow their board spokesman walk on me is irrelevant. They simply need something to bitch about because, the truth is, they've been about as effective as a eunuch in a brothel.
> 
> What I have to say will only reach the serious and the people who want to protect, preserve and defend what is left of the Republic and try to leave the next generation some semblance of the Liberties and Freedoms we enjoyed. Instead, you have a handful of people that sound like a half dozen 85 year old women in a nursing home bitching because they got butt hurt. The only way they feel good about it is a tag team effort to rekindle old arguments and roll them into this one.
> 
> This thread has *NOTHING* to do with whether or not I'm right or wrong. It had to do with a guy making a false allegation about me personally and then *admitting* he liked to argue about it. I did not come here to argue with him. I came here to warn against the long term ramifications about sitting on your butt while the enemies of America are destroying it. The site claims to be a "_prepper_" site, but the guys wanting to pretend they are fighting a war against me aren't prepared for an attack by a group of determined Cub Scouts and a couple of them would starve to death if they got locked in a fully stocked grocery store. They want to be nasty and then complain because I'm challenging them to tone it down and be civil.
> 
> They will have none of that and quite frankly, I am *NOT* their bitch. While they hide in their bedrooms, pecking their keyboards, I'm knocking on doors and talking to decision makers on a daily basis - face to face, nose to nose and toe to toe. I don't back down and think it's childish to keep a running whizzing contest just over a personality contest based upon the FACT the last issue they "_banned_" me over was one where I was proven to be more than right. It's just that issue is irrelevant here and we should be talking about bump stocks - not the petty problems that immature people have with me that (IF THEY WERE MATURE) would best be resolved in PM.
> 
> But, they love the circus atmosphere and that belief that if enough people believe in a lie, they win by majority rule... fans of Hitlery, down to a a - unfortunately we can't say man.


wow, Mr. R. You are rather well spoken. Something not terribly over said here. I do get what you are saying and some points I can see what you are saying about how others behave and interact with others on this side. It greatly take me back to high school where the clicks where the social hierarchy. At the same time you stick compared to all the rest. You peaked my curiosity. I don't know if your trolling, a kid that is exaggerating a wild context and stores, actually a home grown extremest, or somebody with a wild immigration of which not even you can contain...

I'm tempted to engage in a more thought provoking conversation to get to know more about your general motivations and what your so fired up to post about but.. If you open up with this much detail I'm afraid I'd might provoke to much thoughtful of a reply. Either way... how about those bump stocks eh?

oh and inceptor, No, move your mouse AWAY from the quote button.. I already know what your dieing to say... :vs_no_no_no:


----------



## inceptor

Steven said:


> oh and inceptor, No, move your mouse AWAY from the quote button.. I already know what your dieing to say... :vs_no_no_no:


Sorry, couldn't help myself. :vs_laugh:

But in this case my friend, you would be wrong. I think y'all will get along quite well. He may even teach you a thing or two.


----------



## The Tourist

The Resister said:


> Present your own. Negativity does nothing for civil discourse.


Who said anything about negativity? You might know how to tune a 1963 mechanical Corvette carburetor, I'm not so good and your could teach me. You might be a lousy at sharping knives, and I was born to polish steel, I'm was born +800 years too late.

Do you want to debate or just dominate?


----------



## The Resister

Steven said:


> wow, Mr. R. You are rather well spoken. Something not terribly over said here. I do get what you are saying and some points I can see what you are saying about how others behave and interact with others on this side. It greatly take me back to high school where the clicks where the social hierarchy. At the same time you stick compared to all the rest. You peaked my curiosity. I don't know if your trolling, a kid that is exaggerating a wild context and stores, actually a home grown extremest, or somebody with a wild immigration of which not even you can contain...
> 
> I'm tempted to engage in a more thought provoking conversation to get to know more about your general motivations and what your so fired up to post about but.. If you open up with this much detail I'm afraid I'd might provoke to much thoughtful of a reply. Either way... how about those bump stocks eh?
> 
> oh and inceptor, No, move your mouse AWAY from the quote button.. I already know what your dieing to say... :vs_no_no_no:


In my mind the posters wasted over 65 or so posts since I entered this discussion regarding bump stocks. Somebody that routinely disagrees with me wanted to stroke his ego at my expense. I genuinely want to protect Liberty. If that means working with people that I don't like then that is the price. You must understand that the war will not be won by the masses.

ALL change begins with a small, dedicated few that are committed to what they believe in. There were 56 men that signed the Declaration of Independence. On the other side of the political spectrum, Hitler started out with a few guys in a pub. He almost took over the world with a country about the size of Texas. The most amazing man who ever lived was Jesus Christ. He changed the world with a mere twelve apostles.

WHEN we reach the end of this historical cycle and are living in unbearable conditions there will be a remnant that will survive and (unless Armageddon happens), those people will begin the process of spiritual faith, courage, and Liberty. We owe it to future generations to have access to the knowledge of those principles and I pray that I might live to see the day we begin reclaiming that spiritual faith, courage, and Liberty. My critics can wail all they like. I don't have to win all of them over. I only need to wake up those who are willing to think, ask questions and move forward. If one person picks up the banner, my own efforts doubled. That is far greater than stalemate.

As for bump-stocks, I can only remind others that it was not the amount of the tax, but the principle that paved the way for the Boston Tea Party. We have no less a duty to be equally concerned and to act on the information we have.


----------



## The Resister

The Tourist said:


> Who said anything about negativity? You might know how to tune a 1963 mechanical Corvette carburetor, I'm not so good and your could teach me. You might be a lousy at sharping knives, and I was born to polish steel, I'm was born +800 years too late.
> 
> Do you want to debate or just dominate?


I prefer neither. I agree with what you're saying. If you go back in this thread, I did not ask for a debate nor an argument. I presented certain facts about bump stocks. At the end of the day, bump stocks had previously been examined by the BATFE.

Today, there is no difference in the mechanical functionality of a bump stock than there was the day the BATFE approved them. The regulation is not being changed due to the mechanical functionality of the weapon; it's being changed to appease the ignorant. The change is not indicative of any legitimate power that Congress may have given regulatory agencies. If regulatory agencies can unilaterally change the law due to public opinion and if the presidents continue to rule via executive fiat, then Congress serves no purpose and there is no need for the Constitution. To me, that was the big deal.

So, you can discuss a counter philosophy in a civil manner and we can have a productive discourse.

Out of curiosity, if you could rebuild a carburetor on a Corvette, how would approach a group of guys that wanted an argument over it instead of listening and getting it done? And, to make it more difficult, say that Corvette is in the desert where, if you don't fix it, everybody could potentially die of heat exhaustion. How do you approach your critics in that circumstance?


----------



## The Tourist

The Resister said:


> I prefer neither. I agree with what you're saying. Out of curiosity, if you could rebuild a carburetor on a Corvette, how would approach a group of guys that wanted an argument over it instead of listening and getting it done?


That's an easy one. When it comes to boys' toys, there is never a conclusion. Remember Mustang vs. Camaro? I had a 5.0 and blew a Buick Grand National into the weeds. Was mine stock? Of course not, so to many, the race "doesn't count."

I mentioned a Corvette 'mechanical' carburetor because it is one of the most frustrating pieces of technology ever invented. Right now it takes just short of 2,000 dollars to have one rebuilt. Bring that up at a saloon one time--you'll be arguing until close.

Then there's my pet peeve. The myth of the 175 MPH Sportster. Many claim to have seen one. One guy claimed it was built from purloined parts stolen off a "Star Wars" set and intended to be given to famous actor from Harley-Davidson. BTW, don't act like a tourist, when you want to refer to the corporation at HD, say "MoCo."

My point is that I was a good debater and a credit manager. I had to be the guy who could go into court and steadfastly argue either side of the case at the drop of a hat. So now we have the bump-stock. I could remind the court that the 2A was designed to counter despots, and as such, civilians needed the same weapons of their aggressors.

Or, I could argue that the bump-stock, while a simple and affordable device, has nothing to do with the 2A at all, rather it represents a deliberate circumvention of the 1934 weapons act, and as such is wholly illegal.

See my point? There is only one true fact. Susan Anton is the most beatuiful woman to ever walk this planet. Anyone stupid enough to deny that drives a Camaro...


----------



## RubberDuck

.
















Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## The Resister

The Tourist said:


> That's an easy one. When it comes to boys' toys, there is never a conclusion. Remember Mustang vs. Camaro? I had a 5.0 and blew a Buick Grand National into the weeds. Was mine stock? Of course not, so to many, the race "doesn't count."
> 
> I mentioned a Corvette 'mechanical' carburetor because it is one of the most frustrating pieces of technology ever invented. Right now it takes just short of 2,000 dollars to have one rebuilt. Bring that up at a saloon one time--you'll be arguing until close.
> 
> Then there's my pet peeve. The myth of the 175 MPH Sportster. Many claim to have seen one. One guy claimed it was built from purloined parts stolen off a "Star Wars" set and intended to be given to famous actor from Harley-Davidson. BTW, don't act like a tourist, when you want to refer to the corporation at HD, say "MoCo."
> 
> My point is that I was a good debater and a credit manager. I had to be the guy who could go into court and steadfastly argue either side of the case at the drop of a hat. So now we have the bump-stock. I could remind the court that the 2A was designed to counter despots, and as such, civilians needed the same weapons of their aggressors.
> 
> Or, I could argue that the bump-stock, while a simple and affordable device, has nothing to do with the 2A at all, rather it represents a deliberate circumvention of the 1934 weapons act, and as such is wholly illegal.
> 
> See my point? There is only one true fact. Susan Anton is the most beatuiful woman to ever walk this planet. Anyone stupid enough to deny that drives a Camaro...


Well, you "_could_" argue some of the unconstitutional laws. If I disagreed, I would point out the original intent, etc. The point is, we'd be on the same page though disagreeing. That, sir, is *NOT* what happened on this thread. I was falsely accused of something and defended myself. That brought a half dozen chattering trolls to want to argue about B.S. that is ancient history - AND they are still butt hurt that, in the end, I was proven right. Gee, I didn't even rub their noses in it. I went forth with the Second Amendment. Now, we're back to having a rehash of the personality contest from a subject not related to bump stocks.

This is going to go one of three ways:

1) I'll get banned for defending my position

2) The thread will get locked

3) The personality contest will end and if nobody has anything left to say about whether or not we stand up against the executive department outlawing guns one feature at a time, this thread becomes history.

One thing is for damn sure: I did *NOT* start the personality contest on this thread. But, I will see it through. And if what we say on the board is insufficient for anyone, I have a PM here and we can discuss this without the circus atmosphere.


----------



## The Tourist

The Resister said:


> I did *NOT* start the personality contest on this thread. But, I will see it through.


I understand. However, I was trying to draw an analogy in my lifetime that was identical to yours. One thing is that a forum only allows you a few paragraphs to state a position.

Another thing I wanted to convey was that you could have the entire mathematic algorithm for The String Theory in your pocket and some idiot on the forum would claim it was a section of yarn.

I wouldn't worry about it. And let's look at it in its worst case, suppose someone bests your most artfully constructed postulate. So what? I've enjoyed your posts and it's made me really think to keep up with you. There will be lots of topics and numerous opinions.

If you really want to see anger, imagine Buick Grand National owner who just got whopped. I'd like to see how you handle the next chapter of this.


----------



## GoodSam

Talking any kind a gun control is a losing proposition for Trump and the Republican's at this point. Their base certainly doesn't want to hear it and the Leftists will vote against them no matter what they do. I hope he's smart enough to realize that.


----------



## 6811

I suspect trump is not a gun enthusiast. I also suspect that he is trying to appease the left by giving them something that they could claim as a win. My question is... If bump stocks are banned, what do I do with my trouser's belt loop now? Cause originally, bump fire was achieved by using the belt loop... Do we ban them as well


----------



## Gator Monroe

6811 said:


> I suspect trump is not a gun enthusiast. I also suspect that he is trying to appease the left by giving them something that they could claim as a win. My question is... If bump stocks are banned, what do I do with my trouser's belt loop now? Cause originally, bump fire was achieved by using the belt loop... Do we ban them as well


Trump has carried for 30+ Years , Trump has a vast HG collection (Unsure of Long Guns) Trump can carry legally in 46 States , Trump has been Keynote Speaker at several NRA conventions and has spoken fondly of his support for 2A/RTKBA at EVERY Rally he has ever had , Trumps Sons are Hunters and Collectors and carry legally ...


----------



## 6811

Gator Monroe said:


> Trump has carried for 30+ Years , Trump has a vast HG collection (Unsure of Long Guns) Trump can carry legally in 46 States , Trump has been Keynote Speaker at several NRA conventions and has spoken fondly of his support for 2A/RTKBA at EVERY Rally he has ever had , Trumps Sons are Hunters and Collectors and carry legally ...


if he has a vast collection then that qualifies him as a gun enthusiast. If he bans bump stock then I maybe right that he is just appeasing the crying left.

by the way, just to be clear.... I hate bump stocks, its not my thing and I think its a total waste of ammo. but on the other hand, I may hate them and think its useless and all. but at the end of the day, my opinion on bump stocks are just that, an opinion. it should not be banned because I don't like it. if this is a free country, people who chose to have them should be allowed to have them and use them as they please (for legal purposes of course).


----------



## Kauboy

I'm baaaaaaack... :tango_face_grin:

So many things to cover. I spent an hour just catching up on the thread. A lot of nonsense and ego inflating, but there were some tidbits to address.

First, around page 9, *somebody* claimed that I started this "pissing match". As page 1 clearly shows, *somebody* chose to engage *ME* by quoting my post and responding with a useless comment with ZERO intent but to start an argument and display a clear misunderstanding of the proposed rule change.
It's a matter of public record, but please, argue it all you like. *I* started nothing. But, once this cat has a new toy, he's more than happy to keep playing with it.

As to this wonderful little list:


The Resister said:


> The FACTS of this case are very simple:
> 
> 1) The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has proposed a ban on bump stocks, including existing ones *(CORRECT, and nobody has debated this)*
> 2) The President, Donald Trump, has stated the ban is going into effect within weeks *(CORRECT, and nobody has debated this)*
> 3) From what both men have said, the public input was merely a formality. Trump has said it is just a "process." *(CORRECT, and nobody has debated this)*
> 4) The bump stock was evaluated previously and is NOT a machine gun nor does it cause a weapon to become one *(CORRECT, and nobody has debated this)*
> 5) The real motive behind banning bump stocks is to appease the left because most of us don't have any use for a bump stock *(PURE SPECULATION, clearly someone hasn't read the actual text of the NPRM, but is instead injecting opinion.)*
> 
> *Based upon those FACTS, it is not an illogical presupposition to expect the left will use the precedent in the future to ban features on firearms without regard to its actual mechanical functionality.*


What wasn't stated above as "fact" was the original point of my claim. One cannot pose something as "fact" until that something occurs. That has been my whole point. Hume teaches us that even though we can *predict* an event could occur, even though we may have witnessed the event occur 99 times in the past, we *cannot* claim with certainty that the next occurrence will result in the same outcome. It is a logical fallacy.
That has been my entire point from the beginning, and one that the poster refuses to acknowledge explicitly, though it has been acknowledged implicitly a few times. Perhaps that's the best we can hope for.

The last point emphasized in the above quoted text hinges on the 5th "fact" presented in the same text, and one's understanding of what the NPRM *actually* says.
The NPRM clearly states the reasoning behind the inclusion of bump-stock type devices being identified as "machineguns", and their reasoning has nothing to do with functionality. As I've said in past posts, they are using a bit of "word judo" and legalese to broaden the definition of "machinegun". I don't agree with this method, but they have done it before and it has been upheld. It will take a concerted effort to undo what has been done already, let alone any future definition "improvements". (quoted for sarcasm)
However, their method of doing so is NOT susceptible to being reused to ban all guns, and is not going to be used in such a manner. It would be far too easy to overturn in court, as it would not make any logical sense.
If their reasoning is actually read, it would clearly understood why it makes sense in this case.

I also caught the little back and forth concerning "American exceptionalism", and quickly realized that no parties involved actually understand the reason behind the coining of that term by the Frenchman.
"American exceptionalism" has nothing to do with Americans being "exceptional" in how they behave or conduct themselves.
"American exceptionalism", as described by the man of whom my daughter shares the same first name, was a phrase describing the exceptional nature of American governance.
It was not said in compliment. It was actually a claim to the oddity that was 19th century America, a mostly agrarian society largely devoid of the advances in the sciences and arts that Europe had been so accustomed to having intertwined in their own culture. He postulated that democracy would lead to an increase in the sciences and arts, but America was an apparent "exception", in that democracy appeared to be a success, but no such advancement was noted.

Speaking of my daughter, I also caught the post where *someone* saw fit to introduce my daughter as a fictional victim of their child rape fantasy, and would like it to be introduced into the public record that *someone* would be justifiably curb-stomped if the keyboard coward dared make such a quip in my presence. Children are off limits, you vomit-filled douche-bag.

I hope this cleared up anything that might have been left up in the air.
I also hope that Resister understands the line that should not be crossed again.
Any manner of "gentleman" would have known to avoid it the first time. I expected more, but a vile nature is not well-concealed for long.


----------



## Prepared One

Have a nice vacation @Kauboy ? :tango_face_grin:


----------



## Mad Trapper

Be careful.

Liberals are really good , at bump firing, a phallus.

It might get messy.


----------



## Kauboy

Prepared One said:


> Have a nice vacation @Kauboy ? :tango_face_grin:


Since it isn't the topic of the thread, I'll keep it brief. Due to the hurricane making its way through the Yucatán channel, we went the long way 'round, and were unable to hit one of our three expected ports. Honduras will have to make due without my cash until next time. The rest was great. A dolphin experience in Cozumel and a beach island/snorkeling excursion off the coast of Belize. We had beautiful weather for most of the trip and everyone had a good time. A little sea sickness and a touch of sunburn, but a good vacation nonetheless.


----------



## Mad Trapper

Kauboy said:


> Since it isn't the topic of the thread, I'll keep it brief. Due to the hurricane making its way through the Yucatán channel, we went the long way 'round, and were unable to hit one of our three expected ports. Honduras will have to make due without my cash until next time. The rest was great. A dolphin experience in Cozumel and a beach island/snorkeling excursion off the coast of Belize. We had beautiful weather for most of the trip and everyone had a good time. A little sea sickness and a touch of sunburn, but a good vacation nonetheless.


But what about Pancho Villa and all the Mexicans with bump stocks? :vs_laugh:

Hope you had a good time.:tango_face_smile:


----------



## Slippy

Welcome back @Kauboy


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> I'm baaaaaaack... :tango_face_grin:
> 
> So many things to cover. I spent an hour just catching up on the thread. A lot of nonsense and ego inflating, but there were some tidbits to address.
> 
> First, around page 9, *somebody* claimed that I started this "pissing match". As page 1 clearly shows, *somebody* chose to engage *ME* by quoting my post and responding with a useless comment with ZERO intent but to start an argument and display a clear misunderstanding of the proposed rule change.
> It's a matter of public record, but please, argue it all you like. *I* started nothing. But, once this cat has a new toy, he's more than happy to keep playing with it.
> 
> As to this wonderful little list:
> 
> What wasn't stated above as "fact" was the original point of my claim. One cannot pose something as "fact" until that something occurs. That has been my whole point. Hume teaches us that even though we can *predict* an event could occur, even though we may have witnessed the event occur 99 times in the past, we *cannot* claim with certainty that the next occurrence will result in the same outcome. It is a logical fallacy.
> That has been my entire point from the beginning, and one that the poster refuses to acknowledge explicitly, though it has been acknowledged implicitly a few times. Perhaps that's the best we can hope for.
> 
> The last point emphasized in the above quoted text hinges on the 5th "fact" presented in the same text, and one's understanding of what the NPRM *actually* says.
> The NPRM clearly states the reasoning behind the inclusion of bump-stock type devices being identified as "machineguns", and their reasoning has nothing to do with functionality. As I've said in past posts, they are using a bit of "word judo" and legalese to broaden the definition of "machinegun". I don't agree with this method, but they have done it before and it has been upheld. It will take a concerted effort to undo what has been done already, let alone any future definition "improvements". (quoted for sarcasm)
> However, their method of doing so is NOT susceptible to being reused to ban all guns, and is not going to be used in such a manner. It would be far too easy to overturn in court, as it would not make any logical sense.
> If their reasoning is actually read, it would clearly understood why it makes sense in this case.
> 
> I also caught the little back and forth concerning "American exceptionalism", and quickly realized that no parties involved actually understand the reason behind the coining of that term by the Frenchman.
> "American exceptionalism" has nothing to do with Americans being "exceptional" in how they behave or conduct themselves.
> "American exceptionalism", as described by the man of whom my daughter shares the same first name, was a phrase describing the exceptional nature of American governance.
> It was not said in compliment. It was actually a claim to the oddity that was 19th century America, a mostly agrarian society largely devoid of the advances in the sciences and arts that Europe had been so accustomed to having intertwined in their own culture. He postulated that democracy would lead to an increase in the sciences and arts, but America was an apparent "exception", in that democracy appeared to be a success, but no such advancement was noted.
> 
> Speaking of my daughter, I also caught the post where *someone* saw fit to introduce my daughter as a fictional victim of their child rape fantasy, and would like it to be introduced into the public record that *someone* would be justifiably curb-stomped if the keyboard coward dared make such a quip in my presence. Children are off limits, you vomit-filled douche-bag.
> 
> I hope this cleared up anything that might have been left up in the air.
> I also hope that Resister understands the line that should not be crossed again.
> Any manner of "gentleman" would have known to avoid it the first time. I expected more, but a vile nature is not well-concealed for long.


I stated what I stated; you asked me for the fight; YOU wanted the argument. If you want to threaten me, PM me. Any time, any place is my response to you.

Kauboy started this pissing match when I gave *factual* information about bump stocks. He has done nothing save of pecking his keyboard and lying like a New York politician. Everything I stated was a *FACT*. ANYONE who doubts that can show me what, in my original post was not *exactly* as the media portrayed it.

Kauboy wants to hold this board hostage to his lame ego, claiming facts are not facts, and I'm not bothering to respond to all his B.S. It would be a waste of time. The way this ends is to assure each and every one of you that he will not call me a coward to my face. I have a PM here; his challenge is accepted. And that, is the way it is. I did not present any conclusion as a fact, so putting up walls of text because Kauboy cannot read is clearly NOT MY FAULT.

Here is the deal for you Kauboy:

Put up more than five paragraphs and you have one side that can't read beyond ten sentences wailing about a "_thesis_" on the subject. Put more information in and half wits and trouble makers want to start some sh!+ over it. You picked a fight with me and I won't back down. Now, you're insinuating threats? I'm not a coward and if you really thought that, you'd be on PM, not on a thread, trying to get me banned because you have an ego problem AND a comprehension issue.


----------



## The Resister

Those of you who care about what American exceptionalism is REALLY about need to read John Winthrop's sermon, "_A Model of Christian Charity_." Delivered in 1630 it is the most cited sermon by politicians, especially presidents in describing what American exceptionalism is about. You will need some knowledge of the Bible to fully understand the sermon, but since it is so oft cited, you should look up the sermon and read it in its entirety.

Kauboy pretended to be giving you factual information on that point as well since he stated an absolute fact. He's wrong once again, but look it up and read the sermon for yourself. The quote usually appears as one sentence from that entire sermon regarding the U.S. being like "_a shining city on a hil_l."


----------



## Denton

@The Resister - can you simply give it a rest? All you want to do is stir crap. You haven't said Boo until Kauboy comes back. You're just looking for a bunch of crap.


----------



## Denton

@Kauboy - Drop it. Damnit. There's no productivity in all this crap. Glad you had a good time and I'm glad your ship didn't have one of those notorious ship illnesses, but let's drop this thread, what say? It was peaceful again, before you and TR decided to have at it, again. Oh, and you started it! Not to sound like a third-grader, but you did!

As a drug-date-rapists once said in one of his stand-up routines, all I want it peace! :vs_laugh:


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> @The Resister - can you simply give it a rest? All you want to do is stir crap. You haven't said Boo until Kauboy comes back. You're just looking for a bunch of crap.


There you go again. You're the one playing partisan politics and stirring up crap. The thread was dead. Then Kauboy comes back on the attack, clearly saying things you would ban me for - which is why there will never be an honest debate on this forum. How come you didn't acknowledge that Kauboy resurrected the pissing match? Hey, a decent moderator would not have singled me out, but would have, at the very least acknowledged who the instigator is.

No sir. I'm not looking for a "_bunch of crap_." I came on this thread to alert people to the dangers of an executive move that threatens the Constitution - NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. I did not come here to Kauboy's ass for the privilege of posting here and I'm sorry I missed that requirement on the way in.

Kauboy is the one that said he likes an argument, not me. Don't be that dishonest Denton. Take sides, but at least show a modicum of integrity. Kauboy started it; I ended it. I even took him to task asking that he take any future comment to PM so don't lay this at my doorstep. He's not going to bitch slap me and not expect me to defend myself.

I came here to comment on bump stocks. It is ALL Kauboy that this discussion degenerated into something it isn't. You're allowing this board to become a bully pulpit for Kauboy and those who believe he resembles anything that comes close to being a decent human being. If you pick a fight, you should own it. Kauboy said he wanted to argue. I didn't; I don't and if you want the B.S. to end, talk to him, not me.

Denton, the *REAL* reason I'm not backing down this time is that I want to be able to post my opinions *WITHOUT* the inevitable shi+storm that follows by the self appointed gate keepers. Disagreeing with a poster is one thing, but not giving me a choice over whether or not I want to engage in a phony debate or argue is two totally different issues. *I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT PRESENT CONCLUSIONS AS FACTS. FURTHERMORE, WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL FIVE SENTENCES TO MEET KAUBOY'S STANDARDS, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN BITCHING THAT THE RESPONSE WAS A THESIS*.

So, I know you don't like me, but that has no bearing on whether or not I'm right and just because you don't like me does NOT exonerate Kauboy for his actions. His challenge has been accepted. If you have not heard the end of this pissing match by now, Kauboy is definitely responsible as I told him further communications about this should be done in PM. Let's see if he has the decency and maturity to see it that way.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> There you go again. You're the one playing partisan politics and stirring up crap. The thread was dead. Then Kauboy comes back on the attack, clearly saying things you would ban me for - which is why there will never be an honest debate on this forum. How come you didn't acknowledge that Kauboy resurrected the pissing match? Hey, a decent moderator would not have singled me out, but would have, at the very least acknowledged who the instigator is.
> 
> No sir. I'm not looking for a "_bunch of crap_." I came on this thread to alert people to the dangers of an executive move that threatens the Constitution - NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. I did not come here to Kauboy's ass for the privilege of posting here and I'm sorry I missed that requirement on the way in.
> 
> Kauboy is the one that said he likes an argument, not me. Don't be that dishonest Denton. Take sides, but at least show a modicum of integrity. Kauboy started it; I ended it. I even took him to task asking that he take any future comment to PM so don't lay this at my doorstep. He's not going to bitch slap me and not expect me to defend myself.
> 
> I came here to comment on bump stocks. It is ALL Kauboy that this discussion degenerated into something it isn't. You're allowing this board to become a bully pulpit for Kauboy and those who believe he resembles anything that comes close to being a decent human being. If you pick a fight, you should own it. Kauboy said he wanted to argue. I didn't; I don't and if you want the B.S. to end, talk to him, not me.


I suggest you don't all me dishonest, again.

I don't care about your excuses and reeasoning for the continued BS.


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> I suggest you don't all me dishonest, again.
> 
> I don't care about your excuses and reeasoning for the continued BS.


Suggest all you want. Until you edit the thread, you cannot undo what Kauboy did and said. I did not start this sh!+ and you should be willing to admit it.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> Suggest all you want. Until you edit the thread, you cannot undo what Kauboy did and said. I did not start this sh!+ and you should be willing to admit it.


You know what? You'd better look that I called out Kauboy and I highly suggest you check your PM. This is me not as a member but a mod.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

This is getting real old.
Do you have any idea how immature this makes you look? 

And no need for you to answer, it is a rhetorical question.

Denton is being nice. A good friend of over two decades died suddenly and I'm in no mood to be nice.

LET IT GO.


----------



## Denton

rice paddy daddy said:


> This is getting real old.
> Do you have any idea how immature this makes you look?
> 
> And no need for you to answer, it is a rhetorical question.
> 
> Denton is being nice. A good friend of over two decades died suddenly and I'm in no mood to be nice.
> 
> LET IT GO.


Naw, I ain't that nice. I just don't want anyone to be justified in saying I am hasty or rash in my decisions or actions.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> @Kauboy - Drop it. Damnit. There's no productivity in all this crap. Glad you had a good time and I'm glad your ship didn't have one of those notorious ship illnesses, but let's drop this thread, what say? It was peaceful again, before you and TR decided to have at it, again. Oh, and you started it! Not to sound like a third-grader, but you did!
> 
> As a drug-date-rapists once said in one of his stand-up routines, all I want it peace! :vs_laugh:


Not a problem. I'm done here. He's taken his insults and diatribes into PM now so he doesn't embarrass himself publicly anymore.
@The Resister, I've never once called for you to be banned, nor would I support it. Just leave my child out of your posts. Thanks.


----------



## The Resister

Kauboy said:


> Not a problem. I'm done here. He's taken his insults and diatribes into PM now so he doesn't embarrass himself publicly anymore.
> @The Resister, I've never once called for you to be banned, nor would I support it. Just leave my child out of your posts. Thanks.


Nobody brought your nonexistent kid into the discussion and you know it. You've tried to bully me and intimidate me, hoping I'd call you the slightest name just so you could call for me to be banned. This time you've sunk to a new low. I HAVE had my family threatened and I've had my home shot into and a poster on this very board is responsible, if not the perpetrator himself. Why would I do that to someone else, having lived through something you probably won't ever experience?


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> This is getting real old.
> Do you have any idea how immature this makes you look?
> 
> And no need for you to answer, it is a rhetorical question.
> 
> Denton is being nice. A good friend of over two decades died suddenly and I'm in no mood to be nice.
> 
> LET IT GO.


For the last time, I didn't start it and I will let it go when the offending party has had enough. Maybe the next time, I post, he can "_disagree_" without an accusation or using my post as an opportunity to talk down to me. Then ALL the threads can proceed in an orderly fashion... and if someone has a personal problem, take it to PM. There was NO reason for this thread to have gone this far without mature people taking it to PM and not engaging in this did too, did not B.S. I'm trying to end this not just for this thread, but *ALL* future threads.


----------



## Denton

@Resister - I'm locking this thread to protect you from you. You should appreciate that.

I expect great things from you. That's why I am saving you from you.


----------

