Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Simon Green

“Bump stocks are the subject of the OP. It’s hardly off-topic for this thread.”

I haven’t mentioned them. But it’s kind of ironic that I had a debate the other day with a FReeper about bump stocks. I’m not sure where you stand, and I really don’t want to start another debate, but I was arguing that there is no law supporting the ban on bump stocks. The person I was arguing with, when I stated the law, would copy and paste a portion of a news article about the Las Vegas shootings. They wouldn’t argue the law, just try to change the subject or throw up a straw man argument. Seems like a trend around here. I said earlier, and I meant it, if someone proves me wrong, I will admit it and apologize. Most people don’t seem to want to do that.


180 posted on 12/18/2018 2:18:17 PM PST by suthener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]


To: suthener

While I’m against banning them, I’m more concerned with the precedent this sets for banning firearms accessories by executive fiat rather than via the legislature.

And I’ll leave it at that regarding our quibble over the definition of “banning”. Happy Holidays to you and yours.


182 posted on 12/18/2018 2:27:52 PM PST by Simon Green ("Arm your daughter, sir, and pay no attention to petty bureaucrats.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson