I don’t think that you can exercise such fine motor skills while you are shooting up a school or other mass gatherings - which was the whole point of the ban in the first place.
I don’t understand the kind of sociopathy required (by the judges in question) to seek an excuse to pedantically redefine a device whose whole original purpose is killing people en-masse.
I’m not interested in discussing the first paragraph but for the second; as I understand it you have to define something before you can regulate it. The pedantry is over the definition of a machine gun in that a bump stock doesn’t really apply because each bump is a separate action by the operator, and the court apparently agreed. The definition of a machine gun can be changed perhaps to define a maximum rate of fire instead of number of rounds fired per trigger pull or something.
Because anyone needs a few hundred rounds a minute for hunting or personal defense of course. Wonder if there’s a path to sanity by attacking the proponents of these things obvious lack of skill (spray and pray) that they need to compensate for. Can’t let anyone question their abilities right?
The most ridiculous part about it to me is that you lose any semblance of accuracy with it. Not only is it not necessary for hunting or home defense, I’d argue it is not useful.
Its use is that is probably pretty fun to fire at a shooting range, and very useful if you want to fire into a crowd of people and indiscriminately kill as many as you can.
Add comment