National Review On Bump Stocks And “Assault Weapons”
My skepticism of banning assault weapons has always primarily relied on the questionable nature of the distinction. These are not fully automatic military weapons that spray bullets when you hold down the trigger (though “bump stocks” can now make them behave like that, and we should do something about that); they fire once per trigger pull, just like many hunting rifles, and in fact often use smaller-caliber ammunition. Capping magazine size might allow someone to tackle a shooter while he’s reloading, and would apply even if he’s using a handgun instead of a rifle, but it also restricts people’s ability to defend themselves against more typical acts of violence (police do not limit themselves to ten rounds), and extremely high-capacity magazines jam more often.
These data don’t eliminate that skepticism of mine, but they’re worth noting and considering.
Eh, tet-a-tet, tit for tat, this and that, blah blah blah, yammer, yammer, yammer.
This fellow is the Deputy Managing Editor of National Review, and has argued for a bump stock ban and is willing to listen to another “assault weapons” ban based on the fact that the military “sprays” bullets and we do not.
So in addition to being an ignoramus concerning the use of firearms and anything like suppression or directed fire, he cavorts with gun control.
Which is why given the control of the beltway and Northern elitists have over National Review and the apparent desire they have to analyze their way to any conclusion based on what they perceive to be the “data,” the National Review has become irrelevant and meaningless.
You do realize that’s why they hate Trump and the revolution to overthrow the establishment, don’t you? It upends their own self-appointed role of arbiter of the data and creator of policy that comes from the GOP. By bashing the establishment in the face you’ve gotten into their stuff, and they don’t like it one damn little bit.




