Trump "doesn't like" silencers

[satx78247]

I voted for him, and though my vote at the time was in Oregon and thus didn’t matter, I still feel like I voted for the Antichrist.

Best case scenario he backs off. He knows this would be political suicide. Or he does it, with closing new production to us normal folk like with post 86 guns. Or he could do the bump stock thing...this is the most dangerous scenario possible because it’s nfa so we gotta turn em in or become criminals. On top of that I bet, surprise, with zero compensation.

This is bad. Right now we will see what the nra and those around him are truly made of.

Sam7sf,

UNTIL/UNLESS we gun-owners start writing/emailing/phoning the WH about the 2ND & STOPPING support for ANY "gun-control" measure & start repealing those that are now laws/regulations, we won't know, will we??

ImVho, THOUSANDS of phone calls/email/letters WILL get a change in policy & in DJT's opinions/actions.

yours, satx

 

[benenglish]

Right now we will see what the nra and those around him are truly made of.

This will be a "make it or break it" conundrum for the NRA.

 

[Kar98]

I wonder if @realDonaldTrump knows that a "silencer" doesn't work like in the movies where the guns just go "plop, plop" with one attached.

 

[easy rider]

I keep seeing 2nd Amendment, and I'm not trying to be facetious, but are bump stocks and suppressors really covered by the 2nd Amendment? I doubt there's much that can be done to bring back bump stocks, but I believe it would be better to fight for suppressors on their redeeming factors rather than a 2nd Amendment issue.

On that Bloomberg article, I think it's a bit early to say Trump will try to ban suppressors and start jumping ship.

 

[satx78247]

Kar98,

The ONLY suppressed weapon (that I know of) that's REALLY, REALLY, quiet is the factory RUGER .22LR BA rifle that was once marketed to LE & animal control departments. = I'd bet that the suppressed Ruger, that our post game warden had at Ft. AP Hill, cannot be heard 30-40M away.
(It's quieter than a Daisy Red Rider BB gun, using subsonic ammo.)

yours, satx

 

[Maverick44]

Maverick44,

And you believe that I'm a cynic/quitter. = RotflmRao.


yours, satx

I don't believe that you're a quitter. You might, but I don't.

 

[Younggun]

Let’s say suppressors aren’t 2A, that means anything else congruent to firearms use is also not protected. They could pretty much ban everything related to the actual firearm to the point the firearm itself would be useless.


As far as Trump following through, he has just single handedly put more excitement behind the Dem goals than any president in the last 25 years. You think they won’t push harder thinking they have R support?

Hell, some idiot on PBS the other night was pointing out how Dems shouldn’t get upset because only minor gun ban bills are passed because “we can get them banned a little bit at a time”. She wanted to start with suppressors too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sam7sf]

younggun took the words right out of my mouth. Perfect wording thank you.

Adding to his point it’s knowing once something is taken, they don’t stop taking. On top of it, when something does get banned and people don’t get compensated, it’s further proof of one, the government doesn’t lose sleep over fucking us. Two, when we brush it off, we are saying it’s ok to **** us.

 

[Younggun]

And they are wanting to ban something I could buy for $1.99 at the gas station and it would come with a fizzy sugary refreshment.


Perfect example of these laws only hurting those who give a shit about laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

I was asking because, although I have read the 2nd Amendment and how the Fathers framed it, it's hard to make a case, in at least how I understand it, for suppressors as covered in it.

I'm hoping cooler heads will prevail, so I'm not as yet jumping off the Trump bandwagon, he hasn't banned them yet.

 

[Kar98]

Personally, I don't give a crap about suppressors or bump stocks, but we all know the idea is to ban one bit at a time until it's all gone for all practical, meaningful purposes, so therefore: not one effing inch. Just look to the past: guns were banned because they were too small, too cheap, too fast, too stabby, too user-adjustable, too black... it's gonna be too powerful, too, sniper-rifle-y, still too fast, too large etc etc. next. Other countries banned certain calibers with some wishy wishy excuse just because it was the most popular caliber and the idea was to get as many "off the streets" as possible in one swell foop (Canada, .32 ACP), or because civilians shouldn't own "military" calibers (France).
The excuses to cram through just one more "reasonable" "gun control" law will never dry up.

 

[Kar98]

Kar98,

The ONLY suppressed weapon (that I know of) that's REALLY, REALLY, quiet is the factory RUGER .22LR BA rifle that was once marketed to LE & animal control departments. = I'd bet that the suppressed Ruger, that our post game warden had at Ft. AP Hill, cannot be heard 30-40M away.
(It's quieter than a Daisy Red Rider BB gun, using subsonic ammo.)

yours, satx

I'm a bad judge of noise these days, my hearing is all shot in the weirdest ways. It's not like I can't hear the quietest ant farts, but as soon as there are multiple loud noises, it gets all washed together and I can't make out what you're saying for shit.

 

[Sam7sf]

Exactly. I don’t think it matters anymore if you care about something or not. This guy? I’m gd tired of this level of control. I’m tired of the system being engineered for abuse. For over reaching unnecessary bull crap.

 

[Bithabus]

I was asking because, although I have read the 2nd Amendment and how the Fathers framed it, it's hard to make a case, in at least how I understand it, for suppressors as covered in it.

I'm hoping cooler heads will prevail, so I'm not as yet jumping off the Trump bandwagon, he hasn't banned them yet.

Banning suppressors wouldn't be like banning bump stocks. Suppressors are already Title II items. But Trump's comments are despicable. The fact that he would entertain a "ban", that he doesn't understand such a thing is unconstitutional and wrong, makes him our enemy.

 

[Sam7sf]

Banning suppressors wouldn't be like banning bump stocks. Suppressors are already Title II items. But Trump's comments are despicable. The fact that he would entertain a "ban", that he doesn't understand such a thing is unconstitutional and wrong, makes him our enemy.

This is the reality of the situation.

 

[satx78247]

I'm a bad judge of noise these days, my hearing is all shot in the weirdest ways. It's not like I can't hear the quietest ant farts, but as soon as there are multiple loud noises, it gets all washed together and I can't make out what you're saying for shit.

Kar98,

I'm right there with you, as the last Army audiologist that I consulted says that I have LOW (from tracked vehicles) & HIGH (from too many hours, 40 years ago, on the range W/O earplugs) frequency "nerve deafness" now.
Btw, she told me that by the time (that's coming she said!!) that I'm "profoundly deaf", that there will a "permanent fix" for people like you/me.

yours, satx

 

[benenglish]

The only good thing about this is that suppressors aren't a new idea. Bump stocks were sorta new. A new approach to them could fly and it did.

Suppressors, though, are going to require a change in the law since they're already NFA items. There's no way that should get past the Senate.

If it does, at least we'll know which RINOs need to be primaried.

Personally, though, a .22 and a .30 suppressor were in my future. I might have to bump up that timeline.

 

[satx78247]

Banning suppressors wouldn't be like banning bump stocks. Suppressors are already Title II items. But Trump's comments are despicable. The fact that he would entertain a "ban", that he doesn't understand such a thing is unconstitutional and wrong, makes him our enemy.

Bithabus,

And you're going to phone/email/write to DJT to tell him the documented TRUTH about suppressed weapons WHEN??
(Being ignorant of facts does NOT make the POTUS "the enemy".)

yours, satx

 

[satx78247]

To ALL.

Pardon me for quoting President John F. Kennedy (but he was CORRECT in 1960!!): "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

yours, satx

 

[Bithabus]

Bithabus,

And you're going to phone/email/write to DJT to tell him the documented TRUTH about suppressed weapons WHEN??
(Being ignorant of facts does NOT make the POTUS "the enemy".)

yours, satx

I don't think he gives a shit about facts.

I will vote for someone else in the Republican primary.

Besides, even if sound suppressors were magical assassin death tools like in the movies THEY SHOULD NEVER BE BANNED.