The video is an interview with someone from the GOA, but like I said I’ve had time to think. I think it’s most likely a stunt knowing that the government’s lawyer would not have proof on hand and would be worried about perjuring himself, but like I said, I'm not sure if lawyers do that outside of Law and Order.

Look into these eyes. Do they look scared? Do they look like they give a single fuck?

What happened to him being forever unelectable because he plagerised a speech.  He was forever unelectable.  They were concerned about him as a vice president.  Someone help me understand.  How do I get back to my own timeline?

I know this is an April Fools post, but if I may be serious for one minute:

Yeah I’ve been thinking about that. I can’t find a transcript of it. I’m going off of what was reported on various gun websites and there is a one hour video on Millitary Arms Channel on youtube. I dont know why the GOA lawyer would even say that unless he had information the rest of the country doesnt have. I think…

You said all I need is a revolver for defense. I explained why I used semi autos, then you went with an emotional argument because you had no valid rebuttal. So... okay I thought the point was to learn and educate, but sure what was the point?

I'll vote against him in 2020 just like I voted against him in 2016.  

I wish everyone dropped their NRA membership and supported the GOA.

Im really not sure what it means to be honest, because I dont know if the GOA lawyer would have access to the evidence. For a civil suit. How would he even know to say that. And if the Federal lawyer didnt have access to the files one way or the other it may just be that he didnt want to perjure himself. I wish I had…

I agree that bump stocks are stupid, mostly because I can’t afford to shoot full auto.

The punishment is for owning a bumpstock itself. The bump stock is itself classified as a machine gun. So if you are found in possession of a bump stock- a piece of plastic- you are in possession of an unserialized firearm that you did not make yourself, a firearm that was not a private sale where a 4473 was not filed…

Making property that people already own retroactively illegal is Unconstitutional. Changing the law by the executive branch is unconstitutional. This isn’t even a Second Amendment issue.

That is one part of the problem.  The other part is the gun nuts who scream "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" Whenever someone wants to talk about gun control instead of having a conversation.

The difference is that machine guns are not illegal. Machine guns built after 1986 are illegal with a few exceptions. They were made illegal by having a vote in congress (that’s where laws are supposed to be made) and then signed into law by the President. Guns already owned were not affected because the constitution…

This ruling affects everyone. Not just bump stock owners. Bump stocks have been around since the Obama administration. Under Obama they were deemed legal.

You need to be fair and present all the facts.  That one Republican was a wartime incumbent. They always get re-elected.

You asked why not a revolver? I explained why not.

Some people shoot at animals besides deer, like coyotes taking livestock and wild boar.

They are. They encouraged the GOP to ban bump stocks and they approve of red flag laws. Then they are going to send out emails and mailers saying “They’re taking our rights! Join us and pay dues!” They also have the GOP fighting the Violence Against Women Act.  A law that's already in effect.  That can only make them…

Mass shootings are a drop in the bucket as far as gundeaths go, but that’s not the point.