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

[Kutnupe14]

Hard to argue with Valor Ridge here:

[video=youtube;X6Ibdw19168]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Ibdw19168[/video]

One point I disagree with. He says the 2nd Amendment is what makes all our other right possible. That's not true. It's the First. The pen truly is "mightier than the sword." Other than that good vid.

 

[Hohn]

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.

Methinks your trust in Roberts and Kavanaugh is premature at best.

 

[BillD]

Methinks your trust in Roberts and Kavanaugh is premature at best.

It seems so.
And I had such high hopes.

 

[HoughMade]

Speaking of the Supreme Court, someone make an argument that suppressors are covered by the 2d Amendment based upon the original intent of the founders.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'd rather hear an argument for them being made illegal. I don't think there's a rational approach to that.

 

[HoughMade]

I'd rather hear an argument for them being made illegal. I don't think there's a rational approach to that.

That's a different discussion altogether. Just because a law is constitutional, doesn't mean we need the law. Agreed. 100%. There is no good reason to make them illegal.

However, I would like to here the argument that outlawing them is unconstitutional based upon good, sound, conservative constitutional law principles.

 

[Expat]

That's a different discussion altogether. Just because a law is constitutional, doesn't mean we need the law. Agreed. 100%. There is no good reason to make them illegal.

However, I would like to here the argument that outlawing them is unconstitutional based upon good, sound, conservative constitutional law principles.

pfft... you sound really old... the constitution is just an impediment to good democratic government.

 

[rvb]

That's a different discussion altogether. Just because a law is constitutional, doesn't mean we need the law. Agreed. 100%. There is no good reason to make them illegal.

However, I would like to here the argument that outlawing them is unconstitutional based upon good, sound, conservative constitutional law principles.

the miller argument.. silencers, sbrs, MGs.... all in common use by military personnel. if the idea is that the 2A exists so that the people can resist a tyrannical government, then these are all basic tools towards that end...

-rvb

 

[Beowulf]

the miller argument.. silencers, sbrs, MGs.... all in common use by military personnel. if the idea is that the 2A exists so that the people can resist a tyrannical government, then these are all basic tools towards that end...

-rvb

This. Miller is a weird case, upholding a restriction on owning an SBS because it wasn’t in use by the military, despite the fact that short barreled shotguns saw a ton of use in World War 1 in the trenches and there were several WW1 veterans on the court that made the ruling (I guess they were REMFs, if I’m using the right slang).

But that being said, that same logic should expressly prohibit restrictions on short barreled rifles, almost all classes of destructive devices, machine guns, and suppressors.

Clearly, its a ruling the SC liked to pretend never happened and they just ignore it.

 

[rvb]

This. Miller is a weird case, upholding a restriction on owning an SBS because it wasn’t in use by the military, despite the fact that short barreled shotguns saw a ton of use in World War 1 in the trenches and there were several WW1 veterans on the court that made the ruling (I guess they were REMFs, if I’m using the right slang).

But that being said, that same logic should expressly prohibit restrictions on short barreled rifles, almost all classes of destructive devices, machine guns, and suppressors.

Clearly, its a ruling the SC liked to pretend never happened and they just ignore it.

yup, miller was dead by the time his case got to SCOTUS and his case was not well represented. The argument SCOTUS used for upholding the NFA should have been the argument that over-turned it...

-rvb

 

[El-Cigarro]

One point I disagree with. He says the 2nd Amendment is what makes all our other right possible. That's not true. It's the First. The pen truly is "mightier than the sword." Other than that good vid.

Try to fight off invaders with a pen. See how far that gets you. Not to mention most Libs now a days hate the 1st as much as the 2nd.......

 

[Kutnupe14]

Try to fight off invaders with a pen. See how far that gets you. Not to mention most Libs now a days hate the 1st as much as the 2nd.......

Before anyone ever picks up a tool of defense, they must first be inspired to do so. Great orators, authors, and thinkers are FAR more dangerous than any weapon. Who would you say is the more dangerous, Karl Marx or Chris Kyle?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[BugI02]

Before anyone ever picks up a tool of defense, they must first be inspired to do so. Great orators, authors, and thinkers are FAR more dangerous than any weapon. Who would you say is the more dangerous, Karl Marx or Chris Kyle?

When you're in the same room? Chris Kyle, hands down

 

[BE Mike]

Before anyone ever picks up a tool of defense, they must first be inspired to do so. Great orators, authors, and thinkers are FAR more dangerous than any weapon. Who would you say is the more dangerous, Karl Marx or Chris Kyle?

Adolf Hitler.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Adolf Hitler.

^^^^ He gets it

 

[Dead Duck]

Hillary Clinton

 

[BE Mike]

I e-mailed both Senators and my Congressman. I also e-mailed the White House. I got a generic form letter back from the congressman regarding guns. I e-mailed him back and explained my position on suppressors and haven't heard back from him, nor have I heard from the Senators and the President. Has anyone received any feedback from politicos regarding suppressors since Trump's knee-jerk reaction?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I don't know that one could classify an off-the-cuff comment as a "knee jerk reaction". Has there been any "action" taken with regard to suppressors? Seems like it's dropped off the radar.

 

[BE Mike]

I don't know that one could classify an off-the-cuff comment as a "knee jerk reaction". Has there been any "action" taken with regard to suppressors? Seems like it's dropped off the radar.

Ok, maybe I should describe Trump's reaction as a baseless opinion, due to ignorance about the topic of suppressors. If we don't sound off, we'll never get suppressors deregulated. I tried to educate the politicians that I wrote about suppressors and was polite. I'm pretty sure that my comments won't make it to the people I wrote, but some underling clerk, who either sends a form letter, puts a tic mark on a heading or circle files the topic. As far as "action taken", who knows? Maybe Trump has already tasked the ATF to comment and write a "paper" to be used to develop proposed legislation regarding suppressors. I'm not privy to such inside information. My wife is a huge Trump supporter (me not so much) and has said that she thinks Trump is waiting for his second term to propose pro 2A actions. I'm not so sure.