First time i shot an AR15 was in Waikiki, i had 5 shots to shoot, First one hit the target the next 4 went fully semi auto into the ceiling because i wasnt shoulder the firearm tightly.

Bump firing is a function of Semi Auto firearms.

"The real danger is from those ostensibly on the side of the Second Amendment making any concessions to those who are intent on eradicating it."

sorry, I stole that line out of a gun magazine, but it fits so appropriately here.  In essence, you're now in agreement that a particular "gun control" measure works, i.e. "ban bump stocks" will result in reduced crime, save lives.  Drink some more of the magic Kool-Aid.

What's next?

"The real danger is from those ostensibly on the side of the Second Amendment making any concessions to those who are intent on eradicating it."

sorry, I stole that line out of a gun magazine, but it fits so appropriately here.  In essence, you're now in agreement that a particular "gun control" measure works, i.e. "ban bump stocks" will result in reduced crime, save lives.  Drink some more of the magic Kool-Aid.

What's next?

It's even worse than that. He's saying that even though it obviously has no effect on crime, it's okay to ban bump stocks because that "didn't restrict our rights". But that's what they say about the lists of things I wrote... they think none of that, or for that matter, nothing at all that they can ban or criminalize "restricts our rights".

As you say, "What's next?"

I suspect we'll find out shortly.

First time i shot an AR15 was in Waikiki, i had 5 shots to shoot, First one hit the target the next 4 went fully semi auto into the ceiling because i wasnt shoulder the firearm tightly.

Bump firing is a function of Semi Auto firearms.

If that happens again in a few months you will be a felon and subject to the state monopoly of violence if the jackbooted thugs are witness to it or a report of it.

Even the NRA is willing to give them bump stocks.
If that restricts our rights we might as well petition for machine guns. File suit.
(Think we'll win that battle?)

The messed up thing is the March for Lie kid saying outright they won't stop for the inch, they wan't the mile.

Even the NRA is willing to give them bump stocks.
If that restricts our rights we might as well petition for machine guns. File suit.
(Think we'll win that battle?)

The messed up thing is the March for Lie kid saying outright they won't stop for the inch, they wan't the mile.

Once you "agree" that bumpstocks et al. (aka "any device that accelerates the rate of fire of any semi-automatic firearm") either "should" be banned, or "could be" banned without a violation of the right to keep and bear arms, as I've said before, you've capitulated to the argument that if THAT is "commonsense", well, so is THIS (we don't need to "prove" that it's bad, it just is, i.e. "commonsense"). There is no rational, evidence-based reason to ban bumpstocks et al., just like there is no reason to ban anything at all that they want to ban. And, don't kid yourself, they want to ban everything that would allow the civilian population to substantially alter the odds of being loaded into boxcars. It's not a slippery slope, it's a cliff.

Even the NRA is willing to give them bump stocks.
If that restricts our rights we might as well petition for machine guns. File suit.
(Think we'll win that battle?)

The messed up thing is the March for Lie kid saying outright they won't stop for the inch, they wan't the mile.

I heard that speech.  That's what bothers me and why the 2a has to be either 100% or not at all.  Because each gun law uses the prior law as justification to infringe more.

At least now MSD has to use clear backpacks and Hogg is complaining its infringing on his 1st amendment right.