Trump "doesn't like" silencers

[JeepFiend]

Really? See post 135.

Saw that comment. But it was following several other sentences about how you had practiced with a bumpstock and made a functional self defense tool out of it. I didn't read it as being particularly upset about the circumventing of congress as much as not approving of the end result.

As stated to YG, perhaps I read the intent improperly.

Throughout the 22 pages I saw a lot of folks blindly defending Trump, some saying F*** Trump, but I never saw anyone discuss the ongoing assault of the U.S. Constitution. by Trump. Not just the 2nd Amendment. I deleted a sentence because it referenced abortion laws then remembered the standing policy, but the effects of creating laws through redefinition of legal terms goes far beyond just firearms. If he does that again, and gets away with it because the SCOTUS doesn't take the case (or it's not brought up)...I'm scared to death what Kamala Harris would do if her fat arse landed in the White House considering she's already admitted a willingness to circumvent Congress to get what she wants.

 

[Low_Speed]

Nope, I read em all...better of an hour going through, wanting to reply but figured I was a day late and a dollar short.

I saw a lot of posts talking about not liking the ban, what I didn't see was a anyone talking about the method of the ban as much as the end result.

Perhaps I read the intent wrong. It's definitely possible.

Not liking the ban was all encompassing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

I was fooled by the thread's title or I would have talked exclusively about bump stocks.

 

[birddog]

That was most likely your browser filling in the fields.

Browser is the Orwellian big brother. Never forget that.

 

[Younggun]

Nope, I read em all...better of an hour going through, wanting to reply but figured I was a day late and a dollar short.

I saw a lot of posts talking about not liking the ban, what I didn't see was a anyone talking about the method of the ban as much as the end result.

Perhaps I read the intent wrong. It's definitely possible.

Post 44.

Imagine if people had done something, maybe criticized Trump when he allowed the definition of a machine gun to be stretched beyond recognition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure how much more clear I could have been.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DoubleDuty]

Agreed, on both accounts. Trump is going to turn where he believes will gain/ or not lose support. Bumpstocks didn't have enough support, so he took the easier route. From what I've learned about Trump is that you can't always go by what he says in an offhand comment, it's often a soundboard technique.

He says what is on his mind at that time. All that matters is the actions that he takes. Hopefully this is much ado about nothing. But it won't hurt to tweet him and write him a note.

 

[Younggun]

I have no doubt he has someone on staff that monitors his Twitter and tells him when his supporters get pissed.



That said, I’m not making a twitter account. Just sticking with the usual methods. Twitter is a cesspool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

Yeah, I haven't made a twitter account and don't want one. I did send an email though.

 

[BRD@66]

I was fooled by the thread's title or I would have talked exclusively about bump stocks.

 

[JeepFiend]

Post 44.



Not sure how much more clear I could have been.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, all I can say is, perhaps I read intent wrong. Even rereading your entire post in context, my impression is that the post is about Trump assaulting 2A rights and that we shouldn't condone him assaulting 2A rights.

But again, my view is that while this is a gun forum, his actions weren't an assault on 2A rights as much as an assault on the Constitution. Whether his means were legal or not, it was simply a loophole to circumvent Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution. I see semi-automatic rifles be amended to this definition in the very near future, then amendments to free speech to not include "hate speech", etc.

But then again, I'm probably better off sticking to the funny picture thread and just keeping my mouth shut until this issue finally gets to Supreme Court and then either celebrate or suck it up. In the end, this country will get what it deserves. Just glad I don't have kids.

Sorry if I offended anyone. I respect many of the opinions on this board, yours included.

 

[Kar98]

You're not offending anyone, you're just splitting bunnies. An assault on the 2nd A is an assault on the Constitution.

 

[easy rider]

Again, all I can say is, perhaps I read intent wrong. Even rereading your entire post in context, my impression is that the post is about Trump assaulting 2A rights and that we shouldn't condone him assaulting 2A rights.

But again, my view is that while this is a gun forum, his actions weren't an assault on 2A rights as much as an assault on the Constitution. Whether his means were legal or not, it was simply a loophole to circumvent Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution. I see semi-automatic rifles be amended to this definition in the very near future, then amendments to free speech to not include "hate speech", etc.

But then again, I'm probably better off sticking to the funny picture thread and just keeping my mouth shut until this issue finally gets to Supreme Court and then either celebrate or suck it up. In the end, this country will get what it deserves. Just glad I don't have kids.

Sorry if I offended anyone. I respect many of the opinions on this board, yours included.

So are we now talking machine guns or silencers?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I disagree with what you say, just that arguing 2nd Amendment, which may apply to one thing, may not apply to the other.

I've read the case Jeremy Kettler v. U.S.A. May 2019, and although not saying I like the outcome, it does state that silencers fall outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[JeepFiend]

So are we now talking machine guns or silencers?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I disagree with what you say, just that arguing 2nd Amendment, which may apply to one thing, may not apply to the other.

I've read the case Jeremy Kettler v. U.S.A. May 2019, and although not saying I like the outcome, it does state that silencers fall outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

Still waiting to see if the SCOTUS accepts his case. They're due to make a decision this week.

If they take it, it will put that question to rest. If they don't, I guess it's time to sit back with a cup of chamomile tea and start meditating.

 

[Younggun]

Again, all I can say is, perhaps I read intent wrong. Even rereading your entire post in context, my impression is that the post is about Trump assaulting 2A rights and that we shouldn't condone him assaulting 2A rights.

But again, my view is that while this is a gun forum, his actions weren't an assault on 2A rights as much as an assault on the Constitution. Whether his means were legal or not, it was simply a loophole to circumvent Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution. I see semi-automatic rifles be amended to this definition in the very near future, then amendments to free speech to not include "hate speech", etc.

But then again, I'm probably better off sticking to the funny picture thread and just keeping my mouth shut until this issue finally gets to Supreme Court and then either celebrate or suck it up. In the end, this country will get what it deserves. Just glad I don't have kids.

Sorry if I offended anyone. I respect many of the opinions on this board, yours included.

Ahh, I see where your going now.


In that case the issue is with congress passing off their responsibilities to the executive branch. They voted away their powers. The executive was never meant to have the authority it wields and congress doesn’t want the responsibility back. Good luck getting SCOTUS to rule on that though.

Although I didn’t feel my opinions on executive powers in general were all that relevant to the specific topic. In the larger context I agree that there is a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nietzsche]

 

[Sam7sf]

View attachment 174873

Lol! Yes!

 

[Old_Inspector]

My first thought in response to this question is "So?". If the President wants to be informed on this, he will consult his sons or the NRA. Most people don't understand silencers or how they work and very few know how heavily regulated they are. Most people have formed their opinion from the movies and television (i.e., old TV programs & movies with "silenced" revolvers). Not liking something is not the same as acting against something. I personally don't have any use for a suppressor but others do; so what?
I would like to see suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns removed from the NFA requirements but that is not going to happen right away and especially with the Democrats (the ideological and fervent gun haters that they are) and their privileged coastal elites in dominating the Federal government.

 

[HKShooter65]

...a lot of folks blindly defending Trump, some saying F*** Trump, but I never saw anyone discuss the ongoing assault of the U.S. Constitution. by Trump. Not just the 2nd Amendment. ...the effects of creating laws through redefinition of legal terms goes far beyond just firearms. If he does that again, ......I'm scared to death what Kamala Harris would do if her fat arse landed in the White House considering she's already admitted a willingness to circumvent Congress to get what she wants.

Came in here late.
Just read everything.

Jeep's post is a great synopsis of the sum of all my fears.

Almost certainly a Democrat will be elected POTUS in the next 2-4 cycles. That's what happens.

Trump is setting a precedent that POTUS can function as a dictator/king/quasi-diety/despot.
He is establishing a mechanism by which congress and SCOTUS are rendered lame and relatively powerless to stand against a single tyrannical human.

Our founding fathers are quaking in their graves.

A powerful Democratic personality in the White House could gut the Constitution. 2A would be first base.
That is terrifying.

I'm so afraid that the voting against the lesser-evil may be here to stay.
Need we elect a weak personality such that the balance in the 3 branched is maintained?

 

[Southpaw]

A powerful Democratic personality in the White House could gut the Constitution. 2A would be first base.
That is terrifying.

You have said similar thoughts in the past like the Democrats have some sort of honor to begin with. The above event is a foregone conclusion with or without Trump. The far Left have taken over what once was the Democrat Party and Progressive totalitarianism, which will require said gutting, has been their goal since the start.

 

[pronstar]

Trump is setting a precedent that POTUS can function as a dictator/king/quasi-diety/despot.
He is establishing a mechanism by which congress and SCOTUS are rendered lame and relatively powerless to stand against a single tyrannical human.

Our founding fathers are quaking in their graves.

What are you going on about here?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro