He's been vaccinated multiple times....
...after nearly dying of "the cold."
How can you trust this guy?
no one can trust diaper Joe....he is the enemy...
shareThat was an incredibly unintelligent response.
Someone points out a fact about Trump that you don't like. You can't argue with them. They didn't say anything that wasn't true. So naturally, you call President Biden, what you think, is a funny insult.
I often wonder if you actually know anything about Trump or Biden.
I know that Trump was a legally elected President. and life was much better when Trump was President...
https://moviechat.org/nm0874339/Donald-Trump/619faaeb4fa59b22e8ed5963/PRESIDENT-TRUMP-ACCOMPLISHMENTS
now do one for the other guy....
Trump was the legally elected elected President in 2016. If your life was better during his presidency than after, it’s much more likely that the disappointments you are facing are a result of Trumps policies that had yet to affect you while he was still in office.
Either way, this has what to do with Trump’s vaccination status?
lol, I have heard that same ignorant cause-and-effect excuse from others that were just as clueless and in denial as you.
shareWhat did I say that is incorrect?
shareThere is NOTHING likely caused by Trump's policies after his presidency. That makes zero sense and there is zero evidence.
1) Biden put a freeze on all Trump policies for 90 days and even stole credit for putting a cap on meds that Trump passed
2) Things were going so well until the democrats along with their handlers from China spread a cough and started screaming bloody murder over it, to shut down the economy and world.
3) Biden is DIRECTLY responsible for inflation with his executive orders on energy, which he made to satisfy Hunter's employers and investors in his money laundering art print scam, which funds just happen to go into a bank account Joe and Hunter share, but lets ignore that like the FARA violations from Hunter.
4) Biden's administration is DIRECTLY responsible for the war in Ukraine and are already flaming the fire in Israel to feed the Military Industrial Complex
Life was much better during the covid pandemic that Trump mismanaged? It was not better for most Americans.
shareFauci and Birx were in charge. oh and remember when Trump tried to ban flights from China and nancy said it was racist? dont forget to hug a chinese person....lol
shareSo what your saying is that Trump wasn't actually the president? He was the "head pussy in charge" in the oval office instead?
If Trump was not in charge while he was president, then he was unfit to be president. Why are Trump supporters so happy to portray Trump as weak and ineffective?
Trump is your President.
shareTrump was my president until January 2021. Now he is just a person who happens to have Secret Service protection and routinely violates the law.
Are you backing down from your claim that Trump had no authority as president?
I assume you are from Russia and dont understand how the Govt works in America.
shareNope. Natural born American. Telling me I don't know how the government works is very ironic coming from a guy who thinks that he defines what a firearm is, and not the federal government.
shareCommon sense defines a firearm, not the federal government.
shareYour statement is why you do not understand how the government works.
Would you use that defense if you were accused of violating the National Firearms Act for possessing a contraband DIAS? Do you really think you could impress the judge with your claim that an auto sear is not a gun?
If you said that in court, your lawyer might move for a plea of insanity.
Reply with a simple “yes or no” answer and nothing more.
Do you believe that the federal government is incapable of lying and deceiving?
Yes or No?
Yes. Why are you even asking this question? Everyone know the answer is yes.
Are you claiming Trump lied when he said he was going to ban bump stocks by classifying them as contraband machine guns?
Do you think the CFR was not actually amended and that it is a hoax?
Do you think the National Firearms Act of 1934 is a hoax?
Edited to add; I misread the post above. The government is capable of lying to us and they do so at times.
A bump stock cannot fire a projectile. Case closed. The Government lied to you.
shareThe law is the law. It is still the law even if you disagree.
You're an idiot, case closed. :)
I know, I disagree with the law.
Some laws are stupid, like the one that said blacks could be slaves and the law that said women couldn't vote.
Its called common sense.
If 58 people hadn't been murdered with a guy using a bump stock then they would probably still be legal.
So now you're admitting that bump stocks are not legal. Does this mean you accept that Trump had them classified as contraband machine guns (guns) to require their confiscation?
Congress did not pass a law banning bump stocks. The president is not allowed to make laws, but he is allowed to make regulations to enforce the law. Trump amended 27CFR to have his own gun grab.
Bump stocks are not legal and they are not guns.
Again its basic common sense.
The law says bump stocks are guns.
If bump stocks are not guns, then how was Trump able to make them illegal?
Because laws can be amended/changed to fit any criteria. It doesn't matter what the law says, a bump stock is not a gun.
shareThe law says what a gun is, not you.
Are you going to claim that removing the firing pin from a gun means it is no longer a gun as it is disabled?
I say what a gun is, its called common sense.
Its still a gun, a firing pin is needed for a gun to work. Its still a gun with or without a firing pin.
But you have always claimed a device has to be able to fire a bullet to be called a gun.
It is the cornerstone of your whole defense of Trump when you say he is not a gun grabber.
No, I said accessories to a gun are not guns. A firing pin is not an accessory. Any component that is needed to fire a bullet is a gun.
You keep quoting the law and I say the same thing over and over again.
I realize you are just trolling but I don't mind saying the same thing over and over and over again. It makes you look stupid.
Any component that is needed to fire a bullet is a gun.
That is not true. A firing pin, by law, is not a gun. It is merely an accessory. Or can you show me a law that says otherwise?
You keep on coming up with new definitions of what is and what is not a gun. It is impossible to have a rational debate with anyone who does this.
You are the troll who thinks their opinion is more important then the law.
share
Based on this understanding, the removal of a gun's firing pin is not so significant an alteration as to exclude the gun from the definition of firearm. See Reed, 114 F.3d at 1056, 1057 (upholding firearms conviction where defense witness testified that gun was workable after fifteen to twenty minutes of manipulation); cf. United States v. Drasen, 845 F.2d 731, 736 (7th Cir.1988) (“In adding the ‘readily restored’ clause to [the definition of rifle in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(c) ], Congress specifically intended to overcome United States v. Thompson, 202 F.Supp. 503 (N.D.Cal.1962), holding that a firearm with a missing firing pin was not a firearm under the [National Firearms] Act.”). Brown suggests that the “readily” in “readily ․ converted” should be read to require that a defendant possess the means to convert the weapon to an operable state in the course of the offense. Yet the commentary to section 1B1.1 contains no such requirement, and we are not inclined, absent some compelling reason, to read one into its definition. See Yannott, 42 F.3d at 1007 (“[I]t is irrelevant that defendant may not have known how to alter the weapon to render it operable.”); see also United States v. Maddix, 96 F.3d 311, 316 (8th Cir.1996) (noting that ATF agent testified revolver was firearm under § 921(a)(3) “whether or not certain tools were required to load it”). Moreover, we are conscious of the fact that we do not write on a clean slate. In 1991, the Sentencing Commission amended the definition here under consideration “to track more closely the definition of firearm in 18 U.S.C. § 921.” U.S.S.G.App. C, amend. 388. For some time now, section 921(a)(3)'s “readily ․ converted” prong has been subject to a rather expansive judicial construction. See United States v. 16,179 Molso Italian .22 Caliber Winlee Derringer Convertible Starter Guns,
The law says they are. Once again common sense.
That wall of text you pasted here says a gun without a firing pin is still a gun.
It does not say that a firing pin, as you claimed above, is a gun.
A firing pin is needed for a gun to work. A bump stock is not needed for a gun to work. Therefore a bump stock is not a gun. A bump stock is a accessory. Again its basic common sense.
shareNot all functioning guns have firing pins, so your claim is wrong.
shareA bump stock does not have a firing pin so therefore it is not a gun. Again basic common sense.
shareA musket does not have a firing pin, is it still a gun in your opinion?
A bump stock is a gun because the law says it is. That is how it works in the USA, we are a nation of laws.
A musket is still a gun because the firing pin is a hammer. If you knew anything about guns then you would know this. So you support slavery because the law said so?
shareWow, you changing the meaning of words all of the time makes it difficult to keep up.
A hammer is a hammer, not a firing pin. So tell me where the firing pin is on a wheel-lock or match-lock musket then.
I do not support slavery. The law exists even when I oppose slavery. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Its the same thing, it strikes an object which ignites the gun powder which fires the bullet. A bump stock does not have firing pin. Again common sense.
shareYou're trying to sound stupid I guess. A matchlock mechanism does not strike anything to cause ignition.
The matchlock was the first mechanical firing device. It consisted of an S-shaped arm, called a serpentine, that held a match, and a trigger device that lowered the serpentine so that the lighted match would fire the priming powder in the pan attached to the side of the barrel.
It would light the gun powder and fire a projectile. Dang this is easy.
Pwning you is pretty fun.
He literally believes the fed-gov is incapable of lying or deceiving; that should tell you everything.
Liberalism is a state "religion" by which liberals worship the state/government as their God.
He is wish washy and never answers a question directly. Ranb is the person who supported slavery because the law said it was legal. Like you said, Liberalism is a disease.
shareThis is just another one of your lies. I never supported slavery.
shareSo you dont support the law that says slavery could be legal but yet you support the law that says a bump stock is a gun? lol
bro make up your mind! lol
Support is the wrong word. I claimed that laws exist (or did exist) that made slavery legal and classify bump stocks as firearms.
This does not mean I support those laws. I have always opposed trump's anti-gun agenda.
So in this case the law is wrong right? You dont support the law but yet you follow the law. You need to make up your mind.
shareI opposed the amendment of the CFR and was one of the more than 100,000 Americans who wrote to the ATF to give an opinion.
I am complying with the regulation as I do not own a bump stock. That does not mean I agree that it should have been written that way.
I can still obey laws that I oppose. Some day the regulation might change. Courts are slowly waking to the Trump nonsense in the CFR.
So you are saying a bump stock is not a gun? Whew finally! Glad we got this over with.
shareI never said the feds were incapable of lying. You are also a liar.
share[–] tvfan (3604) 3 days ago
Reply with a simple “yes or no” answer and nothing more.
Do you believe that the federal government is incapable of lying and deceiving?
Yes or No?
[–] Ranb (5237) 3 days agoshare
Yes. Why are you even asking this question? Everyone know the answer is yes.
Sorry, I misread that question. I read it as capable. The government does lie to us.
shareSo they are lying about bump stocks being a gun?
shareNo. The regulation actually states that bump stocks are machine guns.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-II/subchapter-B/part-478
The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stock-type device
Understand the law now?
share
No, the law is wrong. A bump stock is NOT a machine gun. So you would support the law that says slavery could be legal?
shareWhen you say wrong, do you mean it is unjust or somehow technically wrong?
How do you define the word "support"? Just because a person obeys a law, does not mean they support it.
Surely you understand that it is the government that defines what guns are.
I do not support gun grabs or slavery laws. But I know laws exist that allow them both.
Slavery is still legal in the USA as punishment for a crime, it is one of the exceptions in the Constitution. I am opposed to this and hope it changes someday.
Unjust, wrong, dumb, stupid or any other synonym you want to use.
I am glad we finally agree that a bump stock is not a gun.
I think we agree that you have a reading comprehension problem instead.
What part of the phrase "a bump stock is a machine gun" did you not understand?
If Trump believes that a bump stock is a gun, why can't you?
A bump stock cannot fire a projectile. Case closed. The Government lied to you.
I just read one line of this sub-thread randomly while scrolling past it .
That was it ^
Seems a particularly dumb thing to say , one can only presume it is some kind of excuse to let Trump off the hook for his gun law reform.
You'd be fine if he took your large capacity magazines too right ?
after all , a large capacity magazine cant fire a projectile.
So you are saying a bump stock is a gun? If it is, then show me a video of a bump stock firing a bullet.
We don't need large capacity magazines either , there is no point to them. Banning bump stocks and large capacity magazines doesn't infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights.
Yup, a large capacity magazine is not a gun.
No I am not saying that , as I quite clearly said in my comment.
I was referring to how you saying "bump stock not a gun" is not some kind of proof that Trump hasnt reduced your access to firepower.
Which is presumably your point , but like I said I hadnt followed the conversation leading up to that
You may be correct that "doesn't infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights."
but you know you could say the same of banning all weapons invented after that Amendment was written and going back to muskets.
You said my comment was dumb.
"Seems a particularly dumb thing to say , one can only presume it is some kind of excuse to let Trump off the hook for his gun law reform."
Anyways, a bump stock will never be a gun.
If all weapons were banned except muskets then that still wouldn't infringe on my 2nd amendment rights as a musket is still a gun. Gun violence would be almost nil as it takes 5 minutes to load a musket.
Ranb thinks a bump stock is a gun because the law tells him so.