Help me keep track of a wager with dannno (UPDATE-DANNNO WON)

[dannno]

ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS ANNOUNCES REGULATION EFFECTIVELY BANNING BUMP STOCKS

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...-stock-devices

ASHINGTON - Today, 23 March 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, clarifying that bump stocks fall within the definition of "machinegun" under federal law, as such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.

In making the announcement, Attorney General Sessions made the following statement:

"Since the day he took office, President Trump has had no higher priority than the safety of each and every American," said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

"That is why today the Department of Justice is publishing for public comment a proposed rulemaking that would define `machinegun' to include bump stock-type devices under federal law - effectively banning them. After the senseless attack in Las Vegas, this proposed rule is a critical step in our effort to reduce the threat of gun violence that is in keeping with the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. I look forward to working with the President's School Safety Commission to identify other ways to keep our country and our children safe, and I thank the President for his courageous leadership on this issue."

On February 20, 2018, the President issued a memorandum instructing the Attorney General "to dedicate all available resources to... propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns." This NPRM is in response to that direction, and would make clear that the term "machinegun" as used in the National Firearms Act (NFA), as amended, and Gun Control Act (GCA), as amended, includes all bump-stock-type devices that harness recoil energy to facilitate the continuous operation of a semiautomatic long gun after a single pull of the trigger. If the NPRM is made final, bump-stock-type devices would be effectively banned under federal law and current possessors of bump-stock-type devices would be required to surrender, destroy, or otherwise render the devices permanently inoperable.

The comment period for the NPRM is 90 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

Good timing, the big march is tomorrow and this totally takes the wind out of their sails..

[phill4paul]

Good timing, the big march is tomorrow and this totally takes the wind out of their sails..

Yah, because bump stocks are what they have been going after all these years.

[Anti Federalist]

Good timing, the big march is tomorrow and this totally takes the wind out of their sails..

Hahahahah...Dannno is The Texan.

Epic trolling dude, epic...God level in fact.

You're still on the hook for $50 to Gunny

[dannno]

You're still on the hook for $50 to Gunny

I don't think so.. I mean, I'll probably give him another $50 anyway, but I won't be on the hook for it..

[Swordsmyth]

I don't think so.. I mean, I'll probably give him another $50 anyway, but I won't be on the hook for it..

Even if Q turns out to be true and Trump ends up MakingAGA and all of this goes away it still won't have made it the right way to do it.

[dannno]

Even if Q turns out to be true and Trump ends up MakingAGA and all of this goes away it still won't have made it the right way to do it.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" -AuH2O

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think so.. I mean, I'll probably give him another $50 anyway, but I won't be on the hook for it..

LOL - No crawfishing...you'll give Glen $50 because you lost this wager, that's over and above whatever you may have been inclined to give him anyways.

[William Tell]

LOL Trump blames Obama for 'legalizing' Bump Stocks, oh, and AF wins, and liberty loses.

Obama Administration legalized bump stocks. BAD IDEA. As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS with a mandated comment period. We will BAN all devices that turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns.

[Anti Federalist]

LOL Trump blames Obama for 'legalizing' Bump Stocks, oh, and AF wins, and liberty loses.

And I hate like hell to win things like this.

We would have been better off as opposition to Hillary.

Trump is going to set the "freedom movement" back twice as far as Shrub did.

[Anti Federalist]

[TheTexan]

The bet is for August 20, which is plenty of time for Trump to roll back this change.

[dannno]

The bet is for August 20, which is plenty of time for Trump to roll back this change.

What change

https://slidefire.com/products/ar-platform/ssar-15-sbs/

$199.95

[dannno]

Does President Trump actually have the power to ban bump stocks?

By Andrew Rudalevige March 26

No one has ever accused Donald Trump of being humble (well, except Donald Trump). Yet at times, the president takes actions pitched as flowing from a sense of constitutional humility — that however much he wants to do something, he just can’t.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.71bfc1a58007

[acptulsa]

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" -Au2O

Digold oxide?

I thought gold was one of the few things in the universe which stoutly resists oxidation...

Barry Goldwater's name is spelled B-A-R-R-Y G-O-L-D-W-A-T-E-R. To spell it any other way is to make people believe you can't differentiate an author and statesman of yore from a modern alt-right internet troll.

And that's over and above demonstrating your weakness in chemistry. It is possible to create Au2O3.

[Superfluous Man]

Is it not the case, though, that you can still buy bump stocks legally? And isn't the bet that you have to not be able to do that?

A bump stock is just a particular configuration of plastic. Right? What if the law, as enforced, only applies to using bump stocks to fire semi-automatic guns rapidly, and not merely buying them? It would seem that Dannno would still win the bet as long as one can legally buy plastic in the configuration of a bump stock.

[dannno]

Is it not the case, though, that you can still buy bump stocks legally? And isn't the bet that you have to not be able to do that?

A bump stock is just a particular configuration of plastic. Right? What if the law, as enforced, only applies to using bump stocks to fire semi-automatic guns rapidly, and not merely buying them? It would seem that Dannno would still win the bet as long as one can legally buy plastic in the configuration of a bump stock.

Trump never intended to ban bumpstocks, he is just running game on the left so they lose momentum and do worse in the 2018 races. If Trump came out hard-line for the second amendment, then you would have a lot of moderate Democrats that would be joining in on these protests and getting more involved. For crazy extremist leftists, protests are like a social gathering. They enjoy them. Most people would prefer not to get involved in those things, and as long as they see the President making some concessions, even if he really isn't, then they don't feel like they have to.

The protests didn't end up being that great, I mean, they were pretty big, but they were all the crazy extremist leftists and the mainstream populous is not really supporting them too much despite the mainstream media support. Trump won this battle.

AF supported Trump to some degree and threw his support away after this and the Omnibus Bill, because he doesn't believe Trump is doing these things for strategic purposes. That is one of the reasons I made the bet, to remind him in six months how strongly he felt what he thought Trump was trying to do at the time just wasn't so.

It seems weird to think that our military has really poor funding, even though our country spends a lot of money on going to war and such it doesn't really do a good job of making sure the military personnel have the equipment and funding they need. That was what the Omnibus Bill was for. Most of the Omnibus Bill went to the military, but it isn't funding for going to war, it's actually for equipment and things that they need. This is something the military hasn't had in decades, it was something Trump wanted very badly, and he was willing to take on some pork spending for a little while longer in order to make sure we have a strong well funded military. That is why Trump felt he had to support it. That is why he said he will never sign another bill like that again.

[Superfluous Man]

Trump never intended to ban bumpstocks, he is just running game on the left so they lose momentum and do worse in the 2018 races. If Trump came out hard-line for the second amendment, then you would have a lot of moderate Democrats that would be joining in on these protests and getting more involved. For crazy extremist leftists, protests are like a social gathering. They enjoy them. Most people would prefer not to get involved in those things, and as long as they see the President making some concessions, even if he really isn't, then they don't feel like they have to.

The protests didn't end up being that great, I mean, they were pretty big, but they were all the crazy extremist leftists and the mainstream populous is not really supporting them too much despite the mainstream media support. Trump won this battle.

AF supported Trump to some degree and threw his support away after this and the Omnibus Bill, because he doesn't believe Trump is doing these things for strategic purposes. That is one of the reasons I made the bet, to remind him in six months how strongly he felt what he thought Trump was trying to do at the time just wasn't so.

It seems weird to think that our military has really poor funding, even though our country spends a lot of money on going to war and such it doesn't really do a good job of making sure the military personnel have the equipment and funding they need. That was what the Omnibus Bill was for. Most of the Omnibus Bill went to the military, but it isn't funding for going to war, it's actually for equipment and things that they need. This is something the military hasn't had in decades, it was something Trump wanted very badly, and he was willing to take on some pork spending for a little while longer in order to make sure we have a strong well funded military. That is why Trump felt he had to support it. That is why he said he will never sign another bill like that again.

That is an utterly stupid line of reasoning.


Why in the world would Trump not support a bump stock ban? That's a pretty minor encroachment on gun rights compared to what he really wants.

[dannno]

Why in the world would Trump not support a bump stock ban? That's a pretty minor encroachment on gun rights compared to what he really wants.

You don't have a very good track record on anything with regards to Trump, I would recommend doing more listening instead of talking.

[Anti Federalist]

AF supported Trump to some degree and threw his support away after this and the Omnibus Bill, because he doesn't believe Trump is doing these things for strategic purposes. That is one of the reasons I made the bet, to remind him in six months how strongly he felt what he thought Trump was trying to do at the time just wasn't so.

Yes, this is correct.

I was willing to give the benefit of doubt, but encroachment on gun rights is an absolute, no $#@!, line in the sand, utter and total deal breaker for me.

Between that and further bans and restrictions that he will support, sign and/or authorize and the budget bill, which is a disaster on a trillion levels and not just because of the spending, that doubt is now gone.

He is what I thought he was all along, an unprincipled NYC flim flam man.

Sessions will carry out his orders, "bump fire" devices will be banned, and we'll be on the road to getting more gun control under Trump than under eight years of Obama.

At least Glen is going to get $50 bucks of dannno's bread...

[H_H]

it still won't have made it the right way to do it.

Umm...... OK? Explain.

For me, results matter. That's what I try to care about and focus on in my own life. It seems to be the best strategy, at least if what you care about is getting good.... results. Hmm. So I guess that's a bit circular. But anyway....

So to the extent that one should care about the actions of any given President of the United States (and how great an extent should that be, really?), it might be wise to apply that same standard. Unless there's some other deeply urgent reason -- other than results -- that we ought to be spending lots of time and concern about this individual? Taking time out of our own lives and worrying about his?

If so, what is that?

[TheTexan]

You don't have a very good track record on anything with regards to Trump, I would recommend doing more listening instead of talking.

He must be as big of a fan of hunting as I am.

[Swordsmyth]

Umm...... OK? Explain.

For me, results matter. That's what I try to care about and focus on in my own life. It seems to be the best strategy, at least if what you care about is getting good.... results. Hmm. So I guess that's a bit circular. But anyway....

So to the extent that one should care about the actions of any given President of the United States (and how great an extent should that be, really?), it might be wise to apply that same standard. Unless there's some other deeply urgent reason -- other than results -- that we ought to be spending lots of time and concern about this individual? Taking time out of our own lives and worrying about his?

If so, what is that?

Even if Dannno's theories are correct Trump is risking our gun rights in a way that is unnecessary and dangerous, there are some things you don't ever sacrifice and guns and due process are two of them.

[dannno]

Even if Dannno's theories are correct Trump is risking our gun rights in a way that is unnecessary and dangerous, there are some things you don't ever sacrifice and guns and due process are two of them.

No, no, under my theory he is protecting gun rights, we will have more gun rights, not less - not sacrificing anything except for temporary peace of mind about what might happen in the future.


You ever watch this?

[Swordsmyth]

No, no, under my theory he is protecting gun rights, we will have more gun rights, not less - not sacrificing anything except for temporary peace of mind about what might happen in the future.


You ever watch this?

Even if your theories are right gun and due process are being risked in the process, if the gambit fails we will have lost things that are indispensable.

[dannno]

Even if your theories are right gun and due process are being risked in the process, if the gambit fails we will have lost things that are indispensable.

How is due process being risked when the entire point of the actions and the likely outcome will be to preserve it?

I suggest you put that video in your list of tubes to watch some time, I think it will give you a better idea of my perspective on this.

[Swordsmyth]

How is due process being risked when the entire point of the actions and the likely outcome will be to preserve it?

I suggest you put that video in your list of tubes to watch some time, I think it will give you a better idea of my perspective on this.

"likely outcome"

Even if we accept your assertion that the outcome you desire is likely (I dispute that it is) it isn't guaranteed, you are risking things that must not be risked.

[dannno]

"likely outcome"

Even if we accept your assertion that the outcome you desire is likely (I dispute that it is) it isn't guaranteed, you are risking things that must not be risked.

I believe it would have been riskier for Trump to come out against all the gun control at that time, that it would have motivated the left more and that we may have seen more gun control as a result.

[Aratus]

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" -AuH2O

COW PALACE 1964 RNC convention speech quote from the late Senator Barry Goldwater.

[Danke]

Now that AF is finally gone, Dannno can keep his $50.

[Aratus]

The members of Congress who managed to hold it up that long will need our help in the midterms, because certain PACs will be running nasty ads about them.

In the other thread people were acting like they were already banned, can't buy them anymore...

This is the problem, people are always judging Trump for things they think he will do in the future.

I never questioned that the ATF has not taken action yet, I am basing it what Trump told his AG to do.

IMO somebody needs to put the $#@!ing bong down for a few weeks and reconnect with reality. Just sayin.

It is slowly occurring to me that if Donald J. Trump fires Jeff Sessions and/or Robert Muller in the next three months, this will impact whether we all can buy bump stocks in less than five month's time. If Sessions does not have Mueller get fired, given the boot, out the door... he himself may get fired. The recent firing of McCabe for good or ill buys him time. Trump talks cutting deals. Bump stocks are an esoteric political commodity in addition to being a real, purchasable product. If he is cutting a deal on several levels to get the leading Democrats from talking up the impeachment process, he has to hand them political plums most leftwintg voters like. Our elections will definitely heat up this summer as the PACs + 527s + fatcat groups go into overdrive, even if Facebook is pretending it has reformed and is now muzzling people with lengthier stints in "FACEBOOK JAIL" or the like!