Trump "doesn't like" silencers

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

Satx and I think alike when it comes to Bump Stocks.

 

[karlac]

Younggun,

Despite my belief that bump-stocks are an expensive toy & a waste of money/ammo, I'm still opposed to outlawing them on "GP".

I detest any infringement whatsoever of the 2A, but the ill advised bump-stock law will be more easily overturned than the consequences of letting the liberal camel hordes, and Obama appointed Federal judiciary, stick their nose further under the tent in 2020.

When that happens, kiss your ass and your guns goodbye. IMO, Trump is our only hope at this point.

 

[Charlie]

I detest any infringement whatsoever of the 2A, .....the liberal camel hordes, and Obama appointed Federal judiciary, stick their nose further under the tent in 2020.
When that happens, kiss your ass and your guns goodbye. IMO, Trump is our only hope at this point.

Unfortunately, you may be correct!

 

[birddog]

Suppressors should be legal to protect the hearing of hunters and target shooters. There’s no good reason for them to be regulated like they are.

DHS and local large LEA’s have begun to roll out a system that can identify and locate the point of origin of gunfire. That may very well be one reason.

.gov doesn’t think like we do. I mean, who in their right mind would have thought there would be a need for dog shit laws?

 

[karlac]

I mean, who in their right mind would have thought there would be a need for dog shit laws?

lol

Despite the fact that some places have more of the human variety than canine, I can still make an argument that we already have way more laws than we need.

 

[easy rider]

Of course not. I fear that he has an elitist attitude towards gun rights.

Suppressors should be legal to protect the hearing of hunters and target shooters. There’s no good reason for them to be regulated like they are.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

 

[satx78247]

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.

easy rider,

TRUTH is that hardly anyone but the owners cared about "bump stocks" & therefore once the NRA didn't come out against the prohibition, people cared little about whether the stocks were legal or not.
(Truth is after I saw a couple of people on the range shooting up a LOT of ammo & mostly missing even the backstop, I wouldn't have paid 2.oo for one of the toys. = I wouldn't even waste my CHEAP 9x19mm CB loads on shooting a toy.)

I only opposed the ban because I believe that ANY "gun control" is TOO MUCH.

yours, satx

 

[birddog]

Personally, I don’t know anyone that owned a bump stock. FA, yea, for various reasons.

I’m not sure why anyone would want to burn thru a ton of brass needlessly. It gets boring quick. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to do it, particularly if they had to pay for the ammo.

My $.02, just thought I’d throw that out there.

You can keep on arguing now ...

 

[easy rider]

easy rider,

TRUTH is that hardly anyone but the owners cared about "bump stocks" & therefore once the NRA didn't come out against the prohibition, people cared little about whether the stocks were legal or not.
(Truth is after I saw a couple of people on the range shooting up a LOT of ammo & mostly missing even the backstop, I wouldn't have paid 2.oo for one of the toys. = I wouldn't even waste my CHEAP 9x19mm CB loads on shooting a toy.)

I only opposed the ban because I believe that ANY "gun control" is TOO MUCH.

yours, satx

Don't get me wrong, I opposed the ban on bumpstocks. I oppose any bans on guns and accessories. People that have no clue of what they're talking about shouldn't be in a position to make such bans, but that's what politics have become.

 

[birddog]

lol

Despite the fact that some places have more of the human variety than canine, I can still make an argument that we already have way more laws than we need.

Yep. Damn shame .gov feels the need to criminalize everything to make a buck.

 

[Maverick44]

Maverick44,

PITY that thinking adults have to deal with REALITY & the FACTS are that NO 3rd Party candidate can WIN in the Electoral College, because the States have fixed it that way.
Not in 2024, 2028 or any other year.
Period. End of story.

yours, satx

PITY that thinking adults have to deal with REALITY & the FACTS are that NO colonials could ever hope to stand against the king and win because the Empire fixed it that way. Not in 1765, not in 1787.
Period. End of story.

I'm sure glad the founders of this once great nation didn't adopt such a defeatist attitude. Do you think that they would stand by and allow this to happen? Do you think they would be content on giving up and allowing their country to die a slow death due to inaction? The fact and reality of the matter is, it's not the states who have fixed it this way. It's us. WE are the people of this nation and WE are the ones who are in control. Whether it be due to cowardice, fear, or simple a lack of caring, we have failed to hold the government accountable. That mindset is cancerous. It will surely kill this nation unless we actively work against it. Of course there are risks. Everything worth fighting for comes with risks. I'd say the founders took a far greater risk when they chose to fight. Have we lost that sense of right and wrong? That sense of freedom?

 

[Maverick44]

I saw no viable third party candidate, not one any better than Trump has been.


Trump has done a fair job in most areas, it’s only his 2A positions I have a major issue with. It was my major concern during the primaries. He won the primaries and at that point he was the best option. Because no candidate will ever fit everyone’s idea if he perfect guy it will always be a “lesser of evils” choice to some extent, regardless of the number of evils there are to choose from.

The only major criticisms I have with Trump are in regards to his 2A decisions. And even then I know that his populist tendencies make him a president that could easily be swayed to start pushing pro gun agendas, but it will only happen if he hears his base is pissed off.


Why do you think he flopped on immigration policies for a while? He started backing down, base got pissed, and he did a 180. It was discussed not to long ago when his DHS director(?) stepped down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn't about Trump, not in the least. Have you forgotten about Romney and McCain? Who's going to be your choice after Trump is gone? Bonnen? If anything, Trump was a big FU to the establishment.

 

[Maverick44]

Nope. Wrong.

When the choice is between Hillary and Trump, I am not harming the country by voting for Trump.

I did not vote for Trump in the primary. But when the general election came, the choice was clear.

Tell me, when was the last time that there was a third party candidate worth voting for? Pat Paulsen? Snoopy?

I'll give you a hint - think Bull Moose party and TR.

Voting for a third party candidate just because he is not Rep or Dem does not automatically mean one is voting for a worth candidate.

Nope, right. Trump has done some good, but has also done more harm to the 2nd Amendment than Obama did in 8 years, because we let him. You seem to think you have no choice in the matter. You do, everyone does. Ignore the party line bullshit and vote for a worthy candidate, regardless of what party they belong to. Otherwise, you are doing a disservice to your country and wasting your vote on an unworthy candidate.

 

[Younggun]

This isn't about Trump, not in the least. Have you forgotten about Romney and McCain? Who's going to be your choice after Trump is gone? Bonnen? If anything, Trump was a big FU to the establishment.

My point was that you will never find a perfect candidate regardless of the number of parties involved. It will always be a lesser of evils situation.

The third and fourth party candidates tend to be shit just like the R/D candidates. Just different shit. So you vote for the one you have the least disagreement with.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

M44,

I'm sure I'm older, but you sound like Grandpa Simpson....only older.

 

[Maverick44]

My point was that you will never find a perfect candidate regardless of the number of parties involved. It will always be a lesser of evils situation.

The third and fourth party candidates tend to be shit just like the R/D candidates. Just different shit. So you vote for the one you have the least disagreement with.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You've missed my point completely. They don't have to be perfect, and you can disagree with them on certain things. If you believe that they truly want to do good things for the country, then that is not voting for the lesser of two evils. That's voting for who you see as a worthy candidate. When you lower yourself to vote for someone who you know is likely to harm the country and attack our rights just because the other person is slightly worse, that's when it's no longer ok.

 

[Maverick44]

M44,

I'm sure I'm older, but you sound like Grandpa Simpson....only older.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Try coming back with an actual argument.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

M44,

Nah, just laughing at your over the top, Yosemite Sam-like ardor...

Have a beer, lay in hammock, think cool (as in temperature) thoughts and relax.

 

[Maverick44]

M44,

Nah, just laughing at your over the top, Yosemite Sam-like ardor...

Have a beer, lay in hammock, think cool (as in temperature) thoughts and relax.

I hate beer. I've never found one that didn't taste like piss.

 

[satx78247]

PITY that thinking adults have to deal with REALITY & the FACTS are that NO colonials could ever hope to stand against the king and win because the Empire fixed it that way. Not in 1765, not in 1787.
Period. End of story.

I'm sure glad the founders of this once great nation didn't adopt such a defeatist attitude. Do you think that they would stand by and allow this to happen? Do you think they would be content on giving up and allowing their country to die a slow death due to inaction? The fact and reality of the matter is, it's not the states who have fixed it this way. It's us. WE are the people of this nation and WE are the ones who are in control. Whether it be due to cowardice, fear, or simple a lack of caring, we have failed to hold the government accountable. That mindset is cancerous. It will surely kill this nation unless we actively work against it. Of course there are risks. Everything worth fighting for comes with risks. I'd say the founders took a far greater risk when they chose to fight. Have we lost that sense of right and wrong? That sense of freedom?

Maverick44,

The frank truth is that most States have it FIXED where NO 3rd party candidate can EVER hope to win, as long as the laws remain as they are now.
In some States you cannot realistically even get on the ballot, without a massive amount of "rigamarole".
I know that you don't want to accept the FACTS (I don't like the situation either.) but that's the simple TRUTH.
(I don't deal in FANTASY or what anyone thinks that the situation should be but rather what it is.)

yours, satx