- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
At that level of ammosexual, it’s compensating for more than just the fact that they’re a terrible shot
“But they’re not machine guns!”
They make your semi-auto fire gun able to shoot as if it were a machine gun. That’s their entire purpose. Fuck off with your pedantry.
“Weaponized Pedantry” should be this Supreme Court’s motto. They should get it embroidered on the backs of their robes in Latin.
Armorosus Diligentia
I think.
Dammit that sounds too cool
Happy Cakeday, ours is in the same week!
FWIW you can bump fire without a bump stock, It just requires a little bit of manual dexterity
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.
In a country with [checks notes] a:
“Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives”
Let’s reflect for a moment on what it means to bunch all those things together.
