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

[DoggyDaddy]

Thank you

It's pretty much what I expected. 199 killed (or injured) with a requirement that each event include at least three - at least 66 qualifying events. About 22 weeks into the year, so around 3 per week

I'm (literally) not seeing it, so it makes sense every time a Crip or a Blood or a Latin King sprays a group with ammo it would count the same as San Bernadino or Las Vegas. It's a shame that the only time they care about gang crime is when the numbers are useful

And even then they don't describe it as gang crime (if they even report it at all). It just quietly gets inserted into the statistics.

 

[Ziggidy]

If he pulls another bumpstock he can kiss his future political aspirations good bye as far as support from 2A patriots.

Sure....and by doing that, you endorse the opposition who wants you to have NO GUN.

Your choice.....

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Sure....and by doing that, you endorse the opposition who wants you to have NO GUN.

Your choice.....

At least they could be opposed. I'm holding my breath to see which GOP congresspeople stand in Trump's way.

That ol' "First they came for the bumpstocks..." poem is feeling more and more apt.

...Then they came for the suppressors...

 

[Ziggidy]

At least they could be opposed. I'm holding my breath to see which GOP congresspeople stand in Trump's way.

That ol' "First they came for the bumpstocks..." poem is feeling more and more apt.

...Then they came for the suppressors...

My gut tells me that if people opposed Trump over this, it would mean a shoe in for the libs who do not want us to have guns. If that happens, I would say it would not take very long for the gun removal process to begin and continue swiftly.

Keep supporting Trump, suppressor or not, and we delay their efforts; for years.

Sometimes we need to look longterm rather than having a knee jerk reaction. Any 2nd Amendment Patriot who refuses to support Trump will literally lose the election for us and greater problems will face us. I'm willing to take a hit here or there to preserve the gun access in the future.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm willing to take a hit here or there to preserve the gun access in the future.

From "Not one more inch" to "I'm willing to take a hit here or there..."

Not wanting to rag on you, personally, and I understand where you're coming from... but this isn't a good stance to take. Regardless of the person in charge, no amount of infringement on 2A should be acceptable.

You'll feel comfortable a year or two from now... having lost more pieces of the 2A pie... but settled on that "new normal". That's how it gets chipped away, year after year.

 

[T.Lex]

My gut tells me that if people opposed Trump over this, it would mean a shoe in for the libs who do not want us to have guns. If that happens, I would say it would not take very long for the gun removal process to begin and continue swiftly.

Keep supporting Trump, suppressor or not, and we delay their efforts; for years.

Sometimes we need to look longterm rather than having a knee jerk reaction. Any 2nd Amendment Patriot who refuses to support Trump will literally lose the election for us and greater problems will face us. I'm willing to take a hit here or there to preserve the gun access in the future.

Recent history disagrees.

It is almost as if when liberals push gun control, there's an organized opposition that can defeat it. Obama literally had the best opportunity to advance gun control when Sandy Hook happened. Yet, nothing national happened. (Yes, some eastern seaboard states were able to push it, but that's on them.)

Yet, when an erstwhile Republican is in the Oval Office, the opposition to gun control is fractured and disorganized.

It stands to reason that, if another liberal is elected, the organized opposition will show up.

Of course, huge sections of our economy will end up socialized, but we'll keep our guns.

 

[HoughMade]

Recent history disagrees.

It is almost as if when liberals push gun control, there's an organized opposition that can defeat it. Obama literally had the best opportunity to advance gun control when Sandy Hook happened. Yet, nothing national happened. (Yes, some eastern seaboard states were able to push it, but that's on them.)

Yet, when an erstwhile Republican is in the Oval Office, the opposition to gun control is fractured and disorganized.

It stands to reason that, if another liberal is elected, the organized opposition will show up.

Of course, huge sections of our economy will end up socialized, but we'll keep our guns.

Something, something Left...close order drill. Something, something Right, something, something mucky balls.

 

[T.Lex]

Something, something Left...close order drill. Something, something Right, something, something mucky balls.

Wait.

Is this the Clark county judge thread?

I was momentarily confused.

 

[BugI02]

From "Not one more inch" to "I'm willing to take a hit here or there..."

Not wanting to rag on you, personally, and I understand where you're coming from... but this isn't a good stance to take. Regardless of the person in charge, no amount of infringement on 2A should be acceptable.

You'll feel comfortable a year or two from now... having lost more pieces of the 2A pie... but settled on that "new normal". That's how it gets chipped away, year after year.

This might make sense if you could point to some believable scenario where the actions you are prescribing actually resulted in the changes you support.

Define precisely what actions you will take and how you intend to guarantee the results will be not one more inch. Vote Democrat? Encourage Trump to be primaried from the right (who even occupies that space?). Write a sternly worded tweet?

We'll wait

 

[BugI02]

My gut tells me that if people opposed Trump over this, it would mean a shoe in for the libs who do not want us to have guns. If that happens, I would say it would not take very long for the gun removal process to begin and continue swiftly.

Keep supporting Trump, suppressor or not, and we delay their efforts; for years.

Sometimes we need to look longterm rather than having a knee jerk reaction. Any 2nd Amendment Patriot who refuses to support Trump will literally lose the election for us and greater problems will face us. I'm willing to take a hit here or there to preserve the gun access in the future.

I think what gravels people on this sort of thing is politics seems to place us in a position of having to support unpalatable options far too often for it to be a coincidence

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This might make sense if you could point to some believable scenario where the actions you are prescribing actually resulted in the changes you support.

Define precisely what actions you will take and how you intend to guarantee the results will be not one more inch. Vote Democrat? Encourage Trump to be primaried from the right (who even occupies that space?). Write a sternly worded tweet?

We'll wait

I have no clue. I don't think anyone has the answers.

Just seems like all politicians want the same result, and are just taking different routes to get there. I can't remember the last time 2A was expanded on the federal level. Regardless, I don't think anyone should be settling for losing just a little bit here and there, though. Maybe there's nothing we can do, and it's just an inevitable thing that will happen.

Maybe nothing will come from these suppressor comments. I think it's far easier to defend suppressors than bump-stocks. He, or whoever goes after them, would have a tougher time rationalizing getting rid of them... what with the legit uses they have. The only arguments I've heard against suppressors are all crapped out based on action movie myths.

 

[BugI02]

Maybe we should start referring to them as 'mufflers' to make it easier for Joe Average to make the connection to the idea of minimizing the noise of everyday use and distance things from the idea of making guns stealthier for nefarious purposes

 

[T.Lex]

I can't remember the last time 2A was expanded on the federal level.

I count the sunsetting of the AWB as an expansion, in the sense that the removal of a restriction allows for expansion.

Frankly, the fact that it was allowed to sunset - rather than getting renewed - confirms that, when organized, 2A rights can be protected and extended.

(I think the Obama-era national parks thing was kinda an extension, too, but REALLY narrow.)

 

[Ziggidy]

I think what gravels people on this sort of thing is politics seems to place us in a position of having to support unpalatable options far too often for it to be a coincidence

I agree and I do not support any restrictions of any kind, however, when faced with option A or option B.....I'll stay with Trump. I'll whine and complain, but will never give the opposition an opportunity to gain more than they have - which is already too much.

 

[rvb]

Trump felt ZERO resistance to the bump stock issue. NRA supported the restrictions! I thought it was all an act at first since ATF had already ruled under Obama they were not MG's per the law... I thought he would give ATF a chance to respond accordingly to his order and then say "gee, I tried, I guess it's up to the legislature" where it would die on vine (just like it did w/ Obama). Did Trump fail at that "4D chess" game? Was he hung out to dry and backed into a corner by NRA's statement that devices that simulate FA should have additional regulations? Was Obama secretly pro-2A and just better at "4D chess" than Trump?

We need to not focus on this simple silencer statement from Trump..... instead we need to focus on the NRA and the getting the NRA behind moving silencers OFF NFA. Should further restrictions on silencers come up through either legislation or EO, we cannot afford to have the NRA endorse it. Or it. will. happen.

another thing is for sure.... we have to stop acting like Trump is some pro-2A savior. He's proving bad for 2A, just not nearly as bad as some of his opposition. We have to admit there is room for someone to do better. Politicians need their feet held to the fire. Saying he's the best we have for 2A and we already know we'll vote for him in 2020 gives him no motivation to take the hard stance we want. I want someone who will do better. I will vote for that person in the primaries over Trump. Only if enough other people are willing to make such a statement will he see his anti-2A actions costing him some base support, and that's what changes a politicians opinion on issues...

2c

-rvb

 

[El-Cigarro]

Who's MORE un-friendly to the 2nd Amendment? Perhaps some of you Trump Haters would rather see a Bernie Sanders or some other Communist in the White House in 2021?????

 

[El-Cigarro]

I could not have said it better.....

 

[Beowulf]

Trump felt ZERO resistance to the bump stock issue. NRA supported the restrictions! I thought it was all an act at first since ATF had already ruled under Obama they were not MG's per the law... I thought he would give ATF a chance to respond accordingly to his order and then say "gee, I tried, I guess it's up to the legislature" where it would die on vine (just like it did w/ Obama). Did Trump fail at that "4D chess" game? Was he hung out to dry and backed into a corner by NRA's statement that devices that simulate FA should have additional regulations? Was Obama secretly pro-2A and just better at "4D chess" than Trump?

We need to not focus on this simple silencer statement from Trump..... instead we need to focus on the NRA and the getting the NRA behind moving silencers OFF NFA. Should further restrictions on silencers come up through either legislation or EO, we cannot afford to have the NRA endorse it. Or it. will. happen.

another thing is for sure.... we have to stop acting like Trump is some pro-2A savior. He's proving bad for 2A, just not nearly as bad as some of his opposition. We have to admit there is room for someone to do better. Politicians need their feet held to the fire. Saying he's the best we have for 2A and we already know we'll vote for him in 2020 gives him no motivation to take the hard stance we want. I want someone who will do better. I will vote for that person in the primaries over Trump. Only if enough other people are willing to make such a statement will he see his anti-2A actions costing him some base support, and that's what changes a politicians opinion on issues...

2c

-rvb

This. Trump has proven that AT BEST, he is clueless moron who will just spout off whatever he thinks will make him popular. At worst, he is another anti-gun New Yorker masquerading as a Patriot (tm).

But, to make matters worse, the corruption and stagnation in the NRA leadership is letting the Feds just steamroll over our rights. The NRA has been way to cozy with the GOP for a long time now. The media seems to think the NRA is puppeting the Repuglicans around, but frankly, since Trump has been in office, I just see them backing every single play Trump makes.

I almost hate to use this analogy but it reminds me of the Pakestani ISI and the Taliban. The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence agency, Pakistan's CIA) spent years during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan building up Islamic extremist groups, like the Taliban, to oppose the Soviets. But they got way too in bed with them and soon, the radical Islamics had counter-infiltrated the ISI, flipping it to basically an arm of the Taliban (or at least a bastion of extremist Islamic political influence).

I feel like this has happened to the NRA under Wayne LaPierre. They started out lobbying the Republicans (and Blue-dog Democrats), but it seems more like the NRA has just become another tool of the GOP to get voters out to vote Red, but getting us nothing in return. At best we've maintained a status quo (or occasionally sneak a psuedo-win by blocking the renewal for the Assault Weapons Ban), but more often, we get BS like Trumps bumpstock ban.

The Republican party will continue to treat the Pro-2A community as stupid sheep to be shorn at election time (and ignored for the rest of the time) until gun owners start holding them actually accountable for passing pro-gun legislation, not just mouthing platitudes occasionally and then sitting on their hands. We shouldn't be satisfied with a Republican controlled Senate that merely blocks anti-gun stuff from the House. We should be screaming at the Republicans for not passing the HPA or killing the Hughes Amendment when they had a majority in both houses.

Plus, if the NRA is continued to be seen as a wholly owned subsidiary for the GOP, any chance of a pro-gun Democrat helping cast a crucial vote when needed becomes nill, because 1) supporting the NRA is basically a death sentence in the DNC during primary season and 2) why bother if they get nothing out of it (for the ones that actually stay in office). A lobbyist group cannot be effective if it just sucks up to one party and clearly the NRA has forgotten that.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Who's MORE un-friendly to the 2nd Amendment? Perhaps some of you Trump Haters would rather see a Bernie Sanders or some other Communist in the White House in 2021?????

"Yeah but Hillary..." is not a good dismissal of what Trump does. Talk about Trump, and voice your personal opinion about what he's doing that doesn't include "...but *other person* is worse..."

Don't think there are many "Trump haters" here. I like him, for the most part. I hope this suppressor talk goes nowhere. I can't see him doing something on it, let alone an EO. It's just a comment he made... a silly one. He's not immune to that.

 

[MCgrease08]

Can we please not turn this into another bash the NRA thread? We have so many of them already.

After actually reading the transcript of the question and answer posted in the OP, to me, this does appear to be more of a throw away line by Trump than anything.

At this point, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and try not to get my panties too twisted. We must all keep a close eye, and if something comes from this later, then we can, and should get ticked off.