There’s been a shooting. The shooter claims self defense. But then witnesses come forward and contradict his story. Who knows? Witnesses honestly do not always see the same thing, or they might misinterpret what they saw. The shooter may honestly believe he had to shoot the person, and maybe he did.
Then photographic evidence reveals the shooter not only blatantly lied about a crucial fact that “supported” his need to shoot, but afterwards he — or someone helping him — tampered with evidence to back up the shooter’s lie.
About now, I — and you, I hope — would have serious doubts about the righteousness of that shoot. Why did he lie? Why was evidence tampered with?
What was his real motivation?
But I’m not really talking about use of defensive force.
Now, suppose someone is passing a law or a new rule that will ban something. It’s something you consider silly, unnecessary, and wasteful. Even potentially dangerous. The rulemaker may honestly believe the item needs to be banned. And it sounds reasonable to you.
But then documentation is presented that shows the rulemaker blatantly lied about what the item does. It simply doesn’t work that way; the lie is contrary to physical reality.
Having any doubts about the rulemaker’s motivation yet?
The ban already seemed reasonable even to you, a person familiar with the topic. It already seemed beyond reasonable and absolutely imperative to a very large segment of the population. And that was before the lie.
So why would the rulemaker bother to lie about it? What does he have to gain? What’s his… future?… motivation?
Bothered yet?
Then you realize there’s another lie, that the item changes the inherent speed at which another device operates, and you know it doesn’t; it’s only an aid for the user. The user can actually do the same thing without the gadget at all.
Why lie about that, too?
This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger
And now that the “bump-stock-type device” ban is set, imagine a change in the DC power structure after the 2020 elections, less than two years away.
What would an administration even less friendly to human/civil rights do with that ban rule and it’s precedent?
Bump stock owners resist ban, in no hurry to surrender devices
“I hadn’t even heard about it,” David Reeh, an operating partner at U.S. Shooting Academy in Tulsa said Wednesday.
[…]
He said the ruling doesn’t raise alarms with him about a slippery slope for future seizures of other guns or gun parts.
I suppose if he hadn’t even heard about, then he certainly never read the NPRM, much less the rule. The ATF was counting on that kind of ignorant complacency. Lies work, if no one questions them.
(More Tip Jar Options) |
