Trump on Suppressors: “I don’t like them at all.”

[BE Mike]

Yep exactly.
I think Trump didnt know what he was talking about but ive still already made several phone calls and emails just in case calling it out. If everyone in the gun industry and community would send 1 email a month even then we would start gaining ground im sure of it.
*****ing on the internet does nothing if you dont follow up with *****ing to your elected representatives.

Yep, griping to the choir won't change any politician's mind. Time to write some polite, yet pointed e-mails and/ or make some phone calls. Since this likely would be an executive decision to change ATF regulations, the White House needs to be contacted. It is important to put forth facts to oppose baseless "perceptions".

 

[Ggreen]

Yep, griping to the choir won't change any politician's mind. Time to write some polite, yet pointed e-mails and/ or make some phone calls. Since this likely would be an executive decision to change ATF regulations, the White House needs to be contacted. It is important to put forth facts to oppose baseless "perceptions".

Or stop rewarding unconstitutional behavior with reelection... Or stop saying at least they're not doing as bad as these people.

You violate my freedoms? Next.


Accepting any elected official that wilfully subverts our rights and constitution is disrespectful of every person that died defending the idea of freedom. More so than any flag burning, the flag is a symbol, our rights are the tangible good.

 

[NyleRN]

Yep, griping to the choir won't change any politician's mind. Time to write some polite, yet pointed e-mails and/ or make some phone calls. Since this likely would be an executive decision to change ATF regulations, the White House needs to be contacted. It is important to put forth facts to oppose baseless "perceptions".

WH can't direct ATF to redefine suppressors. Nor can the president sign an EO affecting them directly. Now he could sign EOs that make the process of obtaining one horrendous, not that its not already. Suppressors and bumpstocks are 2 completely different animals. Bumpstocks were never regulated nor were they defined as to what they were. Plus they fell under 922 accessory for interpretation. Suppressors are clearly defined as a firearm in US Code and is protected in the NFA.

 

[BugI02]

One more added benefit that I did notice with rifle suppressors...

I have an older AAC 762-SD that is a quick disconnect to their Flash Hiders, Muzzle Brakes and Brakeouts. (which is a combo of the two)
Using the full on Muzzle Brake or the Brakeout alone (without suppressor) helps with reducing recoil quite a bit. Having the Brakes coupled with the suppressor mounted to it actually helps better than coupled with their flash hider.

I have several Brakeouts on my 5.56 AR-15s as well as my 30 cals. Yes... Mutable Calibers.
Especially my super short 5.56 guns because.... the 30 cal suppressor is much larger that any 5.56 made ones I've seen and the added volume of the can itself helps with the insane brutal flamethrower that the shorter barrels can be.

So one suppressor switched from gun to gun and a few different calibers all with a simple push and a twist. Easy-Peasy.

AAC Flash Hiders

AAC Muzzle Brakes

AAC Brakeouts


And...
Since I don't have a 22lr suppressor for my daughter's rifle yet, I have used my Gemtech 9mm Multimount.
Not very often because the (early) Multimount doesn't come apart for cleaning. And that's bad for the can, man.

You are not alone in your thinking. In the Truth About Guns suppressor test, they were 30 cal cans, but they tested them at the same time under the same conditions on 5.56. The results were surprising both for how good some were and how bad others were (for instance, the Silencerco Saker 762. Only 22nd out of 27 at what it was ostensibly designed to do, but 5th best at suppressing 5.56. WTF?). I'm now trying to understand what internal design elements were responsible for the difference - scientific curiosity

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...rgest-30-caliber-silencer-testing-event-ever/
Largest .30 Caliber Silencer Testing Event Ever

 

[BE Mike]

Or stop rewarding unconstitutional behavior with reelection... Or stop saying at least they're not doing as bad as these people.

You violate my freedoms? Next.


Accepting any elected official that wilfully subverts our rights and constitution is disrespectful of every person that died defending the idea of freedom. More so than any flag burning, the flag is a symbol, our rights are the tangible good.

Although Trump indicated before being elected that he might support the Hearing Protection Act, apparently he is the biggest roadblock to its success. For a long time, I have had to vote for who was the least of the bad candidates. Let your voice be heard!

 

[Dead Duck]

Or stop rewarding unconstitutional behavior with reelection... Or stop saying at least they're not doing as bad as these people.

You violate my freedoms? Next.


Accepting any elected official that wilfully subverts our rights and constitution is disrespectful of every person that died defending the idea of freedom. More so than any flag burning, the flag is a symbol, our rights are the tangible good.

OK- Fair enough.
Do you mind sending Trump some strongly worded messages explaining our gun rights? Or would you have rather it have been Hillary in office... but at this point if she was, we would be way past just sending word to the white house. We would already have had several gun bans by now and I doubt this forum would still be allowed to stay up for us to have this conversation.

But don't worry -
President Trump is in charge so we can send him messages of our disapproval if we so choose.
And because of that..... you're welcome.

 

[T.Lex]

...Or would you have rather it have been Hillary in office... but at this point if she was, we would be way past just sending word to the white house. We would already have had several gun bans by now and I doubt this forum would still be allowed to stay up for us to have this conversation.
...

Upon what do you base this speculation?

When was the last time a (US) Democrat POTUS was able to push significant - perhaps even unconstitutional - gun control through a divided Congress?

Even if you presume that there'd be a Dem controlled Congress with HRC as POTUS, when was the last time that scenario developed into significant gun control?

 

[nonobaddog]

When was the last time a (US) Democrat POTUS was able to push significant - perhaps even unconstitutional - gun control through a divided Congress?
Even if you presume that there'd be a Dem controlled Congress with HRC as POTUS, when was the last time that scenario developed into significant gun control?

The "last time" is irrelevant. These are the days of completely new levels of disregard for the constitution, even by some courts, and new levels of left insanity.

 

[Dead Duck]

Upon what do you base this speculation?

When was the last time a (US) Democrat POTUS was able to push significant - perhaps even unconstitutional - gun control through a divided Congress?

Even if you presume that there'd be a Dem controlled Congress with HRC as POTUS, when was the last time that scenario developed into significant gun control?

You're right.
I should have just given Hillary that chance. I'm sorry. Trump is all my fault. I stuck you guys with him but I will do better in 2020. I will vote for the worst despicable gun grabbing lying liberal **** that I can find on the ballot. That should help for my past mistake for trying to keep my guns safe.
Then after the election, I will call the white house and ask them where they want me to dump my guns off.

Will this make up for it?

 

[T.Lex]

The "last time" is irrelevant. These are the days of completely new levels of disregard for the constitution, even by some courts, and new levels of left insanity.

I disagree.

The level of disregard for the constitution was an order of magnitude (at least) more significant from about 1860-1865. Even more recently, during the New Deal, I'd submit that the disregard for the constitution was higher. Heck, even 1941-45, in certain ways, it was worse.

Our government remains stable. Our regulatory processes are established. The notion that HRC could have accomplished worse than Trump in terms of gun control is pure fantasy.

(Now, in other policies, she absolutely could have been worse. But that's at least a discussion for a different thread, if not a different forum.)

There's literally zero chance that she could have gotten "several gun bans" through our established processes. She could have asked/demanded/shrilled for them - much like Obama did - but I see no reason to think the results would've been any different. That's why I'm asking.

 

[T.Lex]

You're right.
I should have just given Hillary that chance. I'm sorry. Trump is all my fault. I stuck you guys with him but I will do better in 2020. I will vote for the worst despicable gun grabbing lying liberal **** that I can find on the ballot.

Well, I think Trump intends to run, so you'll probably get the chance to satisfy that promise and your own desire to vote for Trump again.

I'm just trying to figure out if you had a rational basis for your fear of what HRC could have accomplished with regard to gun control. Thanks for answering that question.

 

[Dead Duck]

Well, I think Trump intends to run, so you'll probably get the chance to satisfy that promise and your own desire to vote for Trump again.

I'm just trying to figure out if you had a rational basis for your fear of what HRC could have accomplished with regard to gun control. Thanks for answering that question.

What....
Do you really think it was Bill Clinton who was president in the 90s? Who the **** do you think was pulling his strings? She just couldn't control his cigar fetish.

But it was her. Hillary Clinton was President of the United States for 8 miserable years. My guns remember. They were hiding the whole time... in the lake.

 

[nonobaddog]

I disagree.

The level of disregard for the constitution was an order of magnitude (at least) more significant from about 1860-1865. Even more recently, during the New Deal, I'd submit that the disregard for the constitution was higher. Heck, even 1941-45, in certain ways, it was worse.

Our government remains stable. Our regulatory processes are established. The notion that HRC could have accomplished worse than Trump in terms of gun control is pure fantasy.

(Now, in other policies, she absolutely could have been worse. But that's at least a discussion for a different thread, if not a different forum.)

There's literally zero chance that she could have gotten "several gun bans" through our established processes. She could have asked/demanded/shrilled for them - much like Obama did - but I see no reason to think the results would've been any different. That's why I'm asking.

How do you explain california?

 

[BugI02]

How do you explain california?

State's rights ... errr ... abolitionism?

 

[BugI02]

Upon what do you base this speculation?

When was the last time a (US) Democrat POTUS was able to push significant - perhaps even unconstitutional - gun control through a divided Congress?

Even if you presume that there'd be a Dem controlled Congress with HRC as POTUS, when was the last time that scenario developed into significant gun control?

Weren't you one of the ones on the "Trump's (mis)use of emergency powers will be used by the next progressive president to enact gun control by fiat" bandwagon? Wouldn't that position, if truthfully held, mean that a Dem controlled congress would not be required?

 

[T.Lex]

What....
Do you really think it was Bill Clinton who was president in the 90s? Who the **** do you think was pulling his strings? She just couldn't control his cigar fetish.

But it was her. Hillary Clinton was President of the United States for 8 miserable years. My guns remember. They were hiding the whole time... in the lake.

Well, if you had the guns when the AWB was signed, then they didn't need to hide. (Not to mention, the AWB was supported by none other than Ronald Reagan.)

How do you explain california?

Why would I want to even try?

I was asking about national legislation. Each state has constructed different (sometimes nuanced, sometimes not) gun policies. California is among the worst, obviously.

 

[nonobaddog]

Why would I want to even try?

I was asking about national legislation. Each state has constructed different (sometimes nuanced, sometimes not) gun policies. California is among the worst, obviously.

california is still part of the USA.


Because of the left they have...
gun restrictions - infringement - unconstitutional
magazine restrictions - "
ammo restrictions - "
carry restrictions - "
9th circuit - frequently unconstitutional

 

[bwframe]

Upon what do you base this speculation?

When was the last time a (US) Democrat POTUS was able to push significant - perhaps even unconstitutional - gun control through a divided Congress?

Even if you presume that there'd be a Dem controlled Congress with HRC as POTUS, when was the last time that scenario developed into significant gun control?

The dems were focused on permanently ruining private healthcare. They were 100% successful, as it still "progresses" away daily.

They'll do the same to the Second Amendment, now that they have met their larger goal.

We gun owners know why the Second Amendment is in place. The dems also know why it now needs to be removed.

 

[T.Lex]

The dems were focused on permanently ruining private healthcare. They were 100% successful, as it still "progresses" away daily.

They'll do the same to the Second Amendment, now that they have met their larger goal.

As I said, HRC as POTUS would've been ruinous for many a reason unrelated to 2A issues.

Since 1994, 2A rights nationally have only "progressed" (I use that word ironically) in our favor, in almost every meaningful way. Slowly, but in our direction. Most importantly, in SCOTUS.

Which, giving Trump credit so far for adopting federalist-suggested nominees, appears in no danger of regressing on 2A matters.

The idea that any Dem could push for, and enforce, a gun-ban/-confiscation platform at the national level is fantasy.

 

[nonobaddog]

Upon what do you base this speculation?

When was the last time a (US) Democrat POTUS was able to push significant - perhaps even unconstitutional - gun control through a divided Congress?

Even if you presume that there'd be a Dem controlled Congress with HRC as POTUS, when was the last time that scenario developed into significant gun control?

With bad election results it could be right around the corner. I think you are in denial.