Quote of the day—Nancy Pelosi

They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so.

Nancy Pelosi
House Minority Leader
Oct 5, 2017
Pelosi Hopes Ban on Bump Stocks Is a ‘Slippery Slope’ to More Gun Control
[Via email from Paul Koning.

If they get bump stocks, it won’t be for free. And the slippery slope is likely to be leaning in a different direction than Pelosi is hoping for.—Joe]


3 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Nancy Pelosi

  1. We have, apparently, GIVEN the antigunners a ban on bump stocks, already.
    I have not read a single word about anything we have asked for, let alone GOTTEN, in return for that likely banning.

    Is this like other Democrat supported legislation, where the country gives them what they want for something to be named later, that then never gets named let alone done for us?

    • The only sense in which a ban on bump stocks has happened already is that you can’t buy one because they’ve all been bought.

      There’s a proposed bill, but it isn’t moving, and if it does, it’ll start accreting slippery reverse slope provisions.

      BATFE can do its ‘re-review’ like the NRA asked, but they’re going to unavoidably come to the same conclusion that they came to last time: they haven’t a legal leg to stand on to proclaim it a machine gun conversion kit. They could try, and they’d lose in court based on existing law, if not at trial then on appeal. Then back to Congress.

      Thank goodness for Nancy. Without her, it’d be much harder to bounce the needle back into the Pro side. She’s the enemy the NRA would have to manufacture if she didn’t already exist. In fact, the NRA should announce that it is donating a lot of money to her re-election campaign just for proving them right over and over as a living parody of an opponent. (Don’t actually give money, just announce a big figure that matches an anonymous donation, and make her campaign people squawk like an upturned hen house.)

    • I met a Polish man 30 years ago who said this feature of later performance by the Communists was one of the key features in Soviet negotiation. The other key feature was that as the time for their performance came closer, the demands for renegotiation of their performance increased in urgency and stridency and claims of unfairness.

      The other thing he said was that they reasoned like Erik von Daniken, the ancient astronauts author, that is always with a leap of logic from “There is this mysterious thing that I don’t understand how it came to be” to “It must have been created by ancient aliens, ancient man couldn’t have done it.” I think we can find similar leaps spanning gaps in Leftist and Democrat logic (but I repeat myself) today.

Comments are closed.