ht, so the follow-on question is just focus on the rase, and i'm just making the point i don't think anyone said this at the time, whesn't defeat your argument. i'm not suggestidefeats your argument, but it would help your argument if people were drawing that distinction. >> it certainly would help. but the phrase, given th it's written right now, and the impossibility text ideally of trying to make theer into an object of the verb -- >> and no one wadring the distinction, why would congress have drawn that distctn? your big point, we got to look at 1934, we got to looathat congress wrote, why would congress have drawn that distinction in 1934? >> because they wantget the fully automatic weapons who had the push triggers. if you reach pl,ou're not going to reach those divisions, so they had to sayunion of the trigger to own expos those forms ofeanry, as long as the conventional cover push an pull? how should it be defined, in your view, to cover bump stocks? in other words, moow congress said, mr. mitchell, how should we wre e statute to cover bump stocks since function of the trigge