Reading USA Today’s timid complaint about the SCOTUS decision on bumpstocks, which essentially the media criticizing the inability of a federal agency to misclassify an item without Congressional legislation, does nothing to restore faith in accurate reporting. “Congress banned machine guns from the public in 1934…” No, they didn’t. They taxed them. That’s it. They created a tax trap.
They didn’t “ban” them until 1986, and even then, they only banned the addition of new ones while taxing existing ones. Basic. Simple. Facts. There’s no nuance or interpretation here; it’s just incorrect. It’s ignorant. But it’s presented in a news article for general population consumption, thus gaining credibility from those who trust the honest transmission of information based on the publication’s reputation.
FEAR & LOATHING THE BUMPSTOCK
They then cite the AMA or some American Medical Asshats associative group who predictably deliver the “gunshot wounds are bad m’kay” line but attribute it to “rapid fire bullets” being the issue. Once again, valid arguments are undermined by fabricated claims coming from an ‘authority’ figure or group that the average person is expected to trust. Show me one doctor or nurse in that quoted group who can disassemble a Glock and who understands even the most basic mechanics of that firearm. Find. Me. One. You fucking won’t.
Find me 100 POLICE officers at random right now, and I’ll show you a terrifying percentage of them who have no accurate concept of how the GUN ON THEIR HIP WITH WHICH THEY ARE TRUSTED TO MAKE LIFE AND DEATH DECISIONS WITH WORKS. And they can’t actually shoot it. They struggle just to ‘pass’ a “qualification” once or twice a year.
But why listen to my rant? Why listen to me instead of the vague fearmongery ‘we aren’t gonna tell you this is bad, we’ll just quote people who say this is bad who you, GenPop, don’t know and have no context for knowing they shouldn’t be listened to on this subject’ USA Today or [insert favored news brand].
My credentials only include: Federal Firearms Licensee, National Firearms Act Special Occupational Tax Holder, Firearms Technical Analyst, Small Arms Instructor, Small Arms and Towed Artillery Maintenance Specialist, Armorer, Infantry Rifleman, and Infantry Squad Leader.
OPINION & REACTION
My opinion is just purely based on vague reactionary 2nd Amendment worship and nothing like a reasonably nuanced and informed grasp of the legal and mechanical principles at play, right? Clearly. Let’s quote a medical group who will vaguely parrot that ‘injuries are bad and that these injuries are therefore also bad’ trope.
Why does this really matter? Firstly it irritates me when something is so grossly inaccurate but served forth as an authoritative summary. Secondly, we are seeing the time of Congress and the President hiding behind federal agency action as “we’re doing something, look,” a political hot potato smoke screen shift and become harder.
They’ve never actually had to put their names onto a law, so they’re insulated from the failure of the law because it isn’t a law. It’s just a policy that’s sometimes the law, except now it isn’t. “Woopsie. Our bad. Lolz. We’re helping.”
But hey, the brace rule nonsense got vacated, and bump stock buffoonery is done. The talking heads in the media who need to cry about how “this is the worst thing ever since the last worst thing ever, and we will all be killed by bumpstocks tomorrow” will. Attorneys will make a nice tidy profit on unlawful seizure of property suits and the like. And the world will keep turning with a couple policies being a little more grounded in reality by not being policies any longer.
