"I Vote For The Man" An Outdated Concept....

[jamil]

Funny to watch a grown man playing with a word over and over like a kid who has found his mom's battery operated boyfriend in her underwear drawer and is waving it around like a sword.

Ah yes. The TDS Trumpers’ version of ? At least you didn’t invoke the always brilliant “cuck”.

 

[cce1302]

grammatical note: "retarded" has no more meaning than "imbecile," "moron" or "idiot" now that it has been dropped from the DSM-5 and no longer refers to a disability. All of those words were used in the past to refer to the same condition.
[h=2]Imbecile[/h]The term imbecile was once used by psychiatrists to denote a category of people with moderate to severe intellectual disability, as well as a type of criminal. The word arises from the Latin word imbecillus, meaning weak, or weak-minded. It included people with an IQ of 26–50, between "idiot" and "moron". In the obsolete medical classification, these people were said to have "moderate mental retardation" or "moderate mental subnormality" with IQ of 35–49.

[h=2]Moron[/h][FONT=&quot]Psychology[/FONT]
Moron is a term once used in psychology and psychiatry to denote mild intellectual disability. The term was closely tied with the American eugenics movement. Once the term became popularized, it fell out of use by the psychological community, as it was used more commonly as an insult than as a psychological term. It is similar to imbecile and idiot.

[h=2]Idiot[/h]Idiot was formerly a legal and psychiatric category of profound intellectual disability, in which a person's mental age is two years or less, and he or she cannot guard against common dangers. Along with terms like moron, imbecile, and cretin, the term is now archaic and offensive, and was replaced by the term "profound mental retardation".

[h=2]Retard[/h][FONT=&quot]Pejorative
Retard, when used as a verb is to refer to delay or hold back in terms of progress or development, or to be delayed. As a noun, it is considered a dated, offensive and pejorative term when used to refer to a person who has a mental disability. It was previously used as a genuine term in medical contexts, though has since been succeeded with the term "intellectual disability" in many laws and documents throughout countries in the world.


[/FONT]

And yeah, this attitude of "my team can do no wrong; your team can do no right" is imbecilic and foolish. But many people think that is the only way they will be heard. And in many cases, that attitude is what sells.

 

[jamil]

“Retard” also has uses in music, science, engineering. But because people want to end its use for all purposes you cant use it fhere either. I tend to overuse the word in situations where other words might be more appropriate, as a personal protest to the PC banning of words.

 

[JeepHammer]

No point...

If someone doesn't agree with you AND move farther ('Right') still, they get labeled 'Leftist', 'Liberal', 'Cuck' etc.
To even suggest someone should be QUALIFIED for a political job brings outrage & insults.

When someone brings up the point there is more than the second amendment in the Constitution,
Or there are disqualifiers to the second amendment, like mental illness or past criminal behavior (felonies) you will see someone saying there shouldn't be ANY restrictions to owning/carrying firearms...

So someone wants to argue against registrations, that's fine.
I don't think a registration will work anyway since there are at least as many firearms as people in this country, and firearms are too easy to manufacture.
But that's my OPINION and not fact, I *Believe* it's a waste of time/money/manpower that would take a century or more to even be slightly effective.

Someone wants to argue against registrations of loaded cartridges, an even harder to do and less effective way to go about things simply because of the sheer scale of the project, and cartridges are even easier to manufacture.

The single, most simple idea I've ever heard was from a State Trooper,
And it has exactly ZERO Constitutional issues...
You simply verify the OWNER to possess firearms or not on state ID cards/driver's licence.

You get a driver's licence stamp, Red 'FR' for Firearms Restricted (felony, mental illness, pending criminal charges that restrict ownership/possession),
A Green 'NR' for the average 'Joe' that doesn't have a concealed carry permit, long guns in public only, no concealed or open carry of handguns,
A Green 'OC' for open carry (hunting/target permit),
A Green 'CC' for verified 'Concealed Carry'.

It's a common sense, no brainer that's a small software issue to deploy because it's all in data bases anyway.
This idea has been opposed by Indiana law makers over & over again even though police support it.

This is just ONE of the issues I follow...

 

[Fargo]

Us vs the anti-gunners? Seems like a given to me.

Team Repub is only pro-gun to the extent it is absolutely necessary to keep the gun folk in the fold. 2016-2018 is proof of that. Never mind who was President during 1986 and Ruby Ridge...

There is no one happier about the Dems taking the house than the Republican congressmen who are perpetually terrified of actually having to effectively advance the progun agenda they ran on.

Rand Paul is about the only exception.

Something something pissing something something believing it’s rain...

 

[Ingomike]

Andrew Klavan had an interesting take on current politics and the T man...

[h=1]KLAVAN: What Do Never Trumpers Want?[/h][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]Politics makes us stupid. It forces us to render black-and-white decisions in a gray world. It demands that we seek temporal solutions to eternal problems. It compels us to boil complex questions down to a vote, yea or nay. Blind partisanship and rage only serve to magnify the stupidity. The best defenses against it are humor, patience and an attempt at a fuller understanding of the issues.[/COLOR]
Plus it helps to know your values — what it is you’re fighting for. For me, the highest political value is personal freedom for every adult American. This requires the smallest national government possible to maintain order and the greatest amount of personal responsibility. Do what you want but you pay for the consequences: the debt, the meds, the babies, the community dysfunction. The choices were yours; so are the bills.
The purpose of this freedom is the pursuit of happiness, which is found in virtue freely chosen. Charity freely given, not compelled; fidelity in love for the good of those you love; hard work for the betterment of yourself and your family. As the costs of poor behavior should be on you, the rewards for good behavior should likewise be yours.
These values seem so urgently important to me because they have not existed very often in history and have never existed to the extent they have in the United States. Once lost — once taken by force or, more likely, purchased at the price of welfare and government guaranteed “safety” — they will likely not be seen again for centuries.
Which brings me to the news of the day: Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, hush money, lies, and so on.
It’s clear our president, Donald Trump, is a flawed character. He plays fast and loose with the truth, he’s a bully sometimes and he’s been involved with some sleazy people and sleazy business. And yet, if we had not elected him, Hillary Clinton would almost certainly have appointed at least three Supreme Court justices without a commitment to American values like free speech, the right to bear arms and the right to life. That is not to mention all the anti-freedom judges she would have appointed at other levels, and all the Obama-era anti-freedom regulations and executive orders she would have left in place.
We don’t need to imagine what will happen if Trump is not reelected. The Democrat party has radicalized. Its candidates endorse a Green New Deal which is tyranny in all but name. Every Democrat Senator but three voted not to protect babies born alive after botched abortions. This is who they are.
Trump, meanwhile, has done a fine job. He has appointed good judges, dialed the regs way back, and been a strong defender of the right to life. My worst fears about him — that he’d be authoritarian or a crypto-Democrat — have not been realized.
To protect our freedom and achieve our goals, we now have to support and defend a man we can’t always admire or even like. We can’t allow ourselves to be swept up in a moral panic about Trump’s failings. The alternative to him is simply too stark and the damage the other side would do once in power would likely be irreversible. So — welcome to politics — our situation has some moral complexity to it but our choices are simple: yea or nay.
The Democrats understand this. They throw hysterical fits over Trump’s grotesque sexual remarks in the Access Hollywood tape, but they voted twice for accused rapist Bill Clinton. They wail over the immorality of Roy Moore’s alleged sexual sins in Alabama — but they voted for New Jersey’s Bob Menendez, whose similar sins are far less speculative. They get politics. “Winners make policy,” in the immortal words of Cocaine Mitch McConnell. “Losers go home.”
This is why I no longer understand the moral logic of the Never Trumpers. I know they are good people — some of them are pals. I know they want what is best for the country. But as they regroup from the Weekly Standard or split off from National Review in order to oppose Trump and attack his supporters, I simply cannot understand what real-life better outcome they are offering.
It makes sense to imagine the future of conservatism in a post-Trump world. But if that world comes too soon, the goals of conservatism will be out of reach for a long, long time to come.

 

[Fargo]

Andrew Klavan had an interesting take on current politics and the T man...

KLAVAN: What Do Never Trumpers Want?

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]Politics makes us stupid. It forces us to render black-and-white decisions in a gray world. It demands that we seek temporal solutions to eternal problems. It compels us to boil complex questions down to a vote, yea or nay. Blind partisanship and rage only serve to magnify the stupidity. The best defenses against it are humor, patience and an attempt at a fuller understanding of the issues.[/COLOR]
Plus it helps to know your values — what it is you’re fighting for. For me, the highest political value is personal freedom for every adult American. This requires the smallest national government possible to maintain order and the greatest amount of personal responsibility. Do what you want but you pay for the consequences: the debt, the meds, the babies, the community dysfunction. The choices were yours; so are the bills.
The purpose of this freedom is the pursuit of happiness, which is found in virtue freely chosen. Charity freely given, not compelled; fidelity in love for the good of those you love; hard work for the betterment of yourself and your family. As the costs of poor behavior should be on you, the rewards for good behavior should likewise be yours.
These values seem so urgently important to me because they have not existed very often in history and have never existed to the extent they have in the United States. Once lost — once taken by force or, more likely, purchased at the price of welfare and government guaranteed “safety” — they will likely not be seen again for centuries.
Which brings me to the news of the day: Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, hush money, lies, and so on.
It’s clear our president, Donald Trump, is a flawed character. He plays fast and loose with the truth, he’s a bully sometimes and he’s been involved with some sleazy people and sleazy business. And yet, if we had not elected him, Hillary Clinton would almost certainly have appointed at least three Supreme Court justices without a commitment to American values like free speech, the right to bear arms and the right to life. That is not to mention all the anti-freedom judges she would have appointed at other levels, and all the Obama-era anti-freedom regulations and executive orders she would have left in place.
We don’t need to imagine what will happen if Trump is not reelected. The Democrat party has radicalized. Its candidates endorse a Green New Deal which is tyranny in all but name. Every Democrat Senator but three voted not to protect babies born alive after botched abortions. This is who they are.
Trump, meanwhile, has done a fine job. He has appointed good judges, dialed the regs way back, and been a strong defender of the right to life. My worst fears about him — that he’d be authoritarian or a crypto-Democrat — have not been realized.
To protect our freedom and achieve our goals, we now have to support and defend a man we can’t always admire or even like. We can’t allow ourselves to be swept up in a moral panic about Trump’s failings. The alternative to him is simply too stark and the damage the other side would do once in power would likely be irreversible. So — welcome to politics — our situation has some moral complexity to it but our choices are simple: yea or nay.
The Democrats understand this. They throw hysterical fits over Trump’s grotesque sexual remarks in the Access Hollywood tape, but they voted twice for accused rapist Bill Clinton. They wail over the immorality of Roy Moore’s alleged sexual sins in Alabama — but they voted for New Jersey’s Bob Menendez, whose similar sins are far less speculative. They get politics. “Winners make policy,” in the immortal words of Cocaine Mitch McConnell. “Losers go home.”
This is why I no longer understand the moral logic of the Never Trumpers. I know they are good people — some of them are pals. I know they want what is best for the country. But as they regroup from the Weekly Standard or split off from National Review in order to oppose Trump and attack his supporters, I simply cannot understand what real-life better outcome they are offering.
It makes sense to imagine the future of conservatism in a post-Trump world. But if that world comes too soon, the goals of conservatism will be out of reach for a long, long time to come.

I don’t consider myself a never Trumper and have never said that one couldn’t vote for him in good conscience. I don’t recall ever having said that one couldn’t or shouldn’t.

However, he doesn’t just get a pass on all of his bull**** just because his name isn’t Hillary Clinton.

The authors premise that Trump is somehow preserving conservatism is kind of ridiculous in the face of the executive authoritarianism Trump is currently promoting. Emulating FDR is quite the opposite.

 

[BugI02]

No point...

If someone doesn't agree with you AND move farther ('Right') still, they get labeled 'Leftist', 'Liberal', 'Cuck' etc.
To even suggest someone should be QUALIFIED for a political job brings outrage & insults.

When someone brings up the point there is more than the second amendment in the Constitution,
Or there are disqualifiers to the second amendment, like mental illness or past criminal behavior (felonies) you will see someone saying there shouldn't be ANY restrictions to owning/carrying firearms...

So someone wants to argue against registrations, that's fine.
I don't think a registration will work anyway since there are at least as many firearms as people in this country, and firearms are too easy to manufacture.
But that's my OPINION and not fact, I *Believe* it's a waste of time/money/manpower that would take a century or more to even be slightly effective.

Someone wants to argue against registrations of loaded cartridges, an even harder to do and less effective way to go about things simply because of the sheer scale of the project, and cartridges are even easier to manufacture.

The single, most simple idea I've ever heard was from a State Trooper,
And it has exactly ZERO Constitutional issues...
You simply verify the OWNER to possess firearms or not on state ID cards/driver's licence.

You get a driver's licence stamp, Red 'FR' for Firearms Restricted (felony, mental illness, pending criminal charges that restrict ownership/possession),
A Green 'NR' for the average 'Joe' that doesn't have a concealed carry permit, long guns in public only, no concealed or open carry of handguns,
A Green 'OC' for open carry (hunting/target permit),
A Green 'CC' for verified 'Concealed Carry'.

It's a common sense, no brainer that's a small software issue to deploy.

Allow me to conflate a couple of your ideas for the purpose of argument. The Constitutional qualifiers for the presidency, I believe, are age and nature of citizenship. Nothing about prior political office, military service, useful experience etc - just about anyone can qualify

Would you like to have the government impose additional qualifiers on eligibility for the presidency; and if so, who should be allowed to design and implement them? Think beyond that inevitability of the triumph of progressivism you might believe in and think about how imposed litmus tests could be used against you just as easily as to advance your ideas

Gun owners, the majority of which are likely more law abiding than the average citizenry (at least using the rate at which CCW holders commit crimes as a proxy), feel exactly the same way about further restrictions on who can exercize their 2A rights and how. Restrictions that may seem 'common sense' and limited can easily be expanded and twisted to the point of being unrecognizable. As in the first example, who do you trust to make the determinations of who is eligible for your FR, NR, OC and CC designations. And then what if penalties are such that a violation of shifty rules in any other classification gets you placed in FR? If your 'CC' can you open carry? Why is the 'average joe' restricted from any handgun carry? What if they live in a constitutional carry state?

Just exactly how do you prevent this from devolving into the no fly list for gun owners? What if we did the same thing for voting?

Where 'FR' becomes 'functional retard' and you're not considered trustworthy to vote
A Green 'NR' becomes 'not resistance' enough and you're only allowed to vote under certain narrowly defined circumstances
A Green 'OC' becomes 'oligarchy certified' and you are allowed to vote in more circumstances, but still not all
And a Green 'CC' becomes 'comrade certified' and you're allowed to vote in all circumstances because the powers that be have decided you can be trusted to vote 'the right way'

RKBA and the right to self defense is a natural right, it was not granted by the second amendment. 2A serves to recocnize this and enjoin government at all levels from attempting to interfere. There are no 'qualifications' beyond age of majority in most cases in order to exercise this right (thank God). No training or proficiency requirements, no licensing to avail oneself of the basic right

There is no power that citizenry has granted to the government that has ever failed to be misused, 2A is the only thing that keeps tyranny at arms length when you get down to bedrock. If you give up that, you are forging your own chains

 

[Ziggidy]

However, he doesn’t just get a pass on all of his bull**** just because his name isn’t Hillary Clinton.

It's good enough for me......

 

[Ingomike]

I don’t consider myself a never Trumper and have never said that one couldn’t vote for him in good conscience. I don’t recall ever having said that one couldn’t or shouldn’t.

However, he doesn’t just get a pass on all of his bull**** just because his name isn’t Hillary Clinton.

The authors premise that Trump is somehow preserving conservatism is kind of ridiculous in the face of the executive authoritarianism Trump is currently promoting. Emulating FDR is quite the opposite.

I fully get your concern and would likely completely agree in most cases, but this is a war of sorts with the grabbers, the battle had turned against us, instead of fighting to the bitter end and burning all our powder to just show we would not back down, the general ordered a retreat.

In the aftermath of the Florida shooting we were losing the battle at the Federal level, our forces were caving and the risk of huge losses were high though the purests were shouting damn the torpedoes. The general said I will take care of this by short circuiting it in the narrowest way possible, likely expecting the courts to overturn it later.

I have ponderd just what of our rights the Repubs would have given away in that time had the short circuit not been implemented, Florida is traditionally a very pro gun state and look what they did in that aftermath?

What would have happened if T-man had not done what we all despise?

My answer, far worse then the bumpstock ban beng complained about...

Pick your battles well my friends....

MM

 

[bwframe]

I fully get your concern and would likely completely agree in most cases, but this is a war of sorts with the grabbers, the battle had turned against us, instead of fighting to the bitter end and burning all our powder to just show we would not back down, the general ordered a retreat.

In the aftermath of the Florida shooting we were losing the battle at the Federal level, our forces were caving and the risk of huge losses were high though the purests were shouting damn the torpedoes. The general said I will take care of this by short circuiting it in the narrowest way possible, likely expecting the courts to overturn it later.

I have ponderd just what of our rights the Repubs would have given away in that time had the short circuit not been implemented, Florida is traditionally a very pro gun state and look what they did in that aftermath?

What would have happened if T-man had not done what we all despise?

My answer, far worse then the bumpstock ban beng complained about...

Pick your battles well my friends...

This is correct.

As much as we all do not care for the bumpstock ban, it may well have been the best outcome to be had.


The bumpstock ban is fuel for the nevertrumpers though that are happy to poison the voting pool and help the true anti-gunners to win in 2020 so they can be rid of their TDS.




.

 

[Fargo]

This is correct.

As much as we all do not care for the bumpstock ban, it may well have been the best outcome to be had.


The bumpstock ban is fuel for the nevertrumpers though that are happy to poison the voting pool and help the true anti-gunners to win in 2020 so they can be rid of their TDS.




.

Sooooo a Repub senate and president were going to pass/sign gun control?

Helluva endorsement of the “team” there.

 

[cce1302]

Labeling your opponents "never trumpers" is a perfect illustration of the "my team can do no wrong; your team can do no right" mentality.


And as far as the letters on an ID card, I'd back a 3x5 card that has the letters "trotptkabasnbi." Heck, I'd even go to office depot and pay for those who can't afford to buy a 3x5 card.

 

[jamil]

This is correct.

As much as we all do not care for the bumpstock ban, it may well have been the best outcome to be had.


The bumpstock ban is fuel for the nevertrumpers though that are happy to poison the voting pool and help the true anti-gunners to win in 2020 so they can be rid of their TDS.




.

1) define Nevertrumpers.
2) List the Nevertrumpers participaing in this thread.
3) For each on your list, describe the distinct behaviors which by your definition, qualify them as Nevertrumpers.
4) Repeat steps 1-3 except define, list, and describe for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

If you can’t, may I suggest those terms aren’t as relevant to talk about as you may think.

 

[BugI02]

I'll get you started, here's an answer to #1

TOP DEFINITION
NeverTrumper
A person who will always disagree and be upset with whatever Donald Trump says or does. If Trump farted into a box, they'd complain he didn't fart into their box.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No point...

If someone doesn't agree with you AND move farther ('Right') still, they get labeled 'Leftist', 'Liberal', 'Cuck' etc.
To even suggest someone should be QUALIFIED for a political job brings outrage & insults.

When someone brings up the point there is more than the second amendment in the Constitution,
Or there are disqualifiers to the second amendment, like mental illness or past criminal behavior (felonies) you will see someone saying there shouldn't be ANY restrictions to owning/carrying firearms...

So someone wants to argue against registrations, that's fine.
I don't think a registration will work anyway since there are at least as many firearms as people in this country, and firearms are too easy to manufacture.
But that's my OPINION and not fact, I *Believe* it's a waste of time/money/manpower that would take a century or more to even be slightly effective.

Someone wants to argue against registrations of loaded cartridges, an even harder to do and less effective way to go about things simply because of the sheer scale of the project, and cartridges are even easier to manufacture.

The single, most simple idea I've ever heard was from a State Trooper,
And it has exactly ZERO Constitutional issues...
You simply verify the OWNER to possess firearms or not on state ID cards/driver's licence.

You get a driver's licence stamp, Red 'FR' for Firearms Restricted (felony, mental illness, pending criminal charges that restrict ownership/possession),
A Green 'NR' for the average 'Joe' that doesn't have a concealed carry permit, long guns in public only, no concealed or open carry of handguns,
A Green 'OC' for open carry (hunting/target permit),
A Green 'CC' for verified 'Concealed Carry'.

It's a common sense, no brainer that's a small software issue to deploy because it's all in data bases anyway.
This idea has been opposed by Indiana law makers over & over again even though police support it.

This is just ONE of the issues I follow...

Who determines who is "qualified" for political office? Also how would you gain that "qualification"?

I'm one of those who say there should be no restrictions. Well that is if the person is a free man, if they are incarcerated or locked up in a mental institution I can see not allowing them access. But once free they should have all the rights of a free man.

In regards to registration I oppose it, partially for the same reasons you do in that it would be ineffective. But for others as well, you would have to have mandatory universal background checks for starters. And they would have to be universal, want to sell/give a gun to your child? Background check to transfer the registration. Want to loan a gun to a friend? Same.
You mention people making their own firearms, how would that work with mandatory registration? The same as is now the case for class 3 firearms?

As for the idea from the State Trooper, not only no but hell no. I don't want every joe/jill blow that I show my license to to know I'm licensed. Cashier at a grocery/liquor store if I want a six pack, cold medicine, etc. Teller at a bank. Etc, etc.

Team Repub is only pro-gun to the extent it is absolutely necessary to keep the gun folk in the fold. 2016-2018 is proof of that. Never mind who was President during 1986 and Ruby Ridge...

There is no one happier about the Dems taking the house than the Republican congressmen who are perpetually terrified of actually having to effectively advance the progun agenda they ran on.

Rand Paul is about the only exception.

Something something pissing something something believing it’s rain...

Don't forget who was the President that signed into law the bill that banned civilian ownership of new full auto.

It's good enough for me......

So if Pelosi/Schumer came up to him and offered him all the money he wants for a wall, in exchange for the bill also having an "AWB" and he agreed, it's good enough for you because he isn't Clinton?

I fully get your concern and would likely completely agree in most cases, but this is a war of sorts with the grabbers, the battle had turned against us, instead of fighting to the bitter end and burning all our powder to just show we would not back down, the general ordered a retreat.

In the aftermath of the Florida shooting we were losing the battle at the Federal level, our forces were caving and the risk of huge losses were high though the purests were shouting damn the torpedoes. The general said I will take care of this by short circuiting it in the narrowest way possible, likely expecting the courts to overturn it later.

I have ponderd just what of our rights the Repubs would have given away in that time had the short circuit not been implemented, Florida is traditionally a very pro gun state and look what they did in that aftermath?

What would have happened if T-man had not done what we all despise?

My answer, far worse then the bumpstock ban beng complained about...

Pick your battles well my friends....

MM

The shortest circuiting would have been a veto if a bill had passed. I would almost guarantee they couldn't get enough votes for an override in that case. Congress critters remember what happened after the last one passed, how many were voted out?

Have you read the ban language? It covers more than just bumpstocks. Binary triggers and similar for starters. And quite possibly much much more if they wish. Lighter trigger springs and a shorter reset, you now possess a machine gun.

It was also done a year after the Nevada shooting. If they couldn't get a bill passed right after, they wouldn't have gotten one passed over a year later.

 

[bwframe]

It's a HUGE secret that there are RINO's and nevertrumpers in the republican congress right? Same secret about the politics section of INGO right?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It's a HUGE secret that there are RINO's and nevertrumpers in the republican congress right? Same secret about the politics section of INGO right?

 

[bwframe]

 

[jamil]

I fully get your concern and would likely completely agree in most cases, but this is a war of sorts with the grabbers, the battle had turned against us, instead of fighting to the bitter end and burning all our powder to just show we would not back down, the general ordered a retreat.

In the aftermath of the Florida shooting we were losing the battle at the Federal level, our forces were caving and the risk of huge losses were high though the purests were shouting damn the torpedoes. The general said I will take care of this by short circuiting it in the narrowest way possible, likely expecting the courts to overturn it later.

I have ponderd just what of our rights the Repubs would have given away in that time had the short circuit not been implemented, Florida is traditionally a very pro gun state and look what they did in that aftermath?

What would have happened if T-man had not done what we all despise?

My answer, far worse then the bumpstock ban beng complained about...

Pick your battles well my friends....

MM

That he did it is fallacious evidence that he did it for a good reason. You’re not making a reasonable case for why gun owners should accept what Trump did and especially how he did it. It sounds more like a case for why the Trump faithful should resolve their cognitive dissonance with some delicious Trump really did us a favor sauce. If you can reclassify a plastic accessory as a machine gun, what can’t you reclassify?