Clarence Thomas' Opinion Legalizing Bump Stocks Is Indefensible

[dpibel]

41. Some of what you say is incoherent

But I'll do my best to respond. Last round, though, because I try to stay away from discussions of religion. My bad for getting into this one.

#1 It's prohibited to the vast majority of citizens. Unlike AR-style rifles, which can be easily modified to fire at rates similar to machine guns. If you really think the whole issue is whether "you" pull the trigger multiple times, rill rill fast, or the bump stock allows you to pull the trigger once and have bullets keep coming out without further intervention of your finger, you are talking about how many angels can gavotte on the head of a pin.

#2 That's just silly. You think it's the same thing to go into a gun store and emerge with a weapon that can be made functionally fully automatic and to go to a federal agency and start an application process? I think you must be joking.

#3 Well, at least one Supreme Court Justice thinks that this is just sophistry and if it delivers rounds like a duck, and requires the same effort to shoot as a duck, then it might very well be a duck. If you think this was a slam-dunk, no-duh interpretation of statutory language then maybe you should wonder why the lower courts got it so wrong and your hero Mr. Justice Thomas had to go through so many gyrations to reach this perfectly clear outcome.

#4 What list? What are you even talking about? Technically you can own one? Come on.

"Two of your count, four of mine." Can you give me that in English?

As I said, it's silly to debate religion with true believers. Words change meanings. Oracular pronuciamentos take on deep meaning. Knock yourself out, sport! Whatever gets you through the night.