Besides law-abiding Americans having their second amendment rights infringed upon, easily the next most bothersome aspect of the gun control debate is liberals fighting for something which they apparently know very little about.
While this is somewhat understandable for the average civilian, though it would never silence a democrat anyway, it is even more disturbing when a federal organization such as the Department of Justice does not know the facts well enough to protect the American people. Unfortunately, this proves to be the most recent situation as the DOJ just declared a firearm accessory, the bump stock, to be part of a “machine gun.”
This could not be farther from the truth, as the usually plastic rifle attachment provides an additional feature to a firearm, just as a silencer would.
However, the apparently unknowledgeable DOJ is not referring to them as such and is instead claiming that bump stocks convert a ‘standard rifle’ into an ‘assault rifle,’ or most recently being called a ‘machine gun’ in their attempt to have them banned.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is currently working to “redefine the term ‘machine gun’ so that it [references] machine guns and non-machine guns as well.”
Unfortunately, the DOJ and ATF cannot be solely blamed for supporting the liberal, gun-grabbing agenda, as 11 republicans have indicated overreaching laws to ban bump stocks since the Las Vegas shooting, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor John Kasich.
While liberals are obviously confused, changing the definition of a type of firearms is highly dangerous as the leftist mentality is applied to second amendment laws.
President Donald Trump appeared to be undecided on the matter when conservatives immediately expressed their concerns about a bump stock ban. Unfortunately, on March 12, ‘Trump’s DOJ’ announced that it would be moving forward with the ban.
In response to second amendment support, including applicable accessories, liberals are often to quick to ask something along the lines of, “Why does the average civilian need such a weapon?”
Some shooters may have concrete explanations of their use of the equipment, however, for most, it is a grave concern that banning something as simple as a bump stock (which can be replicated in other ways, anyway) is only the beginning of further legislation to occur after mass shootings which are a clear infringement on Constitutional rights.