The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: ABX on June 03, 2019, 04:38:03 pm
-
The next 'bump stock'. I'm sure apologists will say this isn't an attack on the 2nd Amendment.
....President Trump was asked about the use of suppressors as he left the White House for a trip to the UK....
...As we are all aware, President Trump took a similarly dim view of bump fire stocks. And following the Las Vegas shooting, he directed the ATF to “take another look†at them. That resulted in the magical reclassification of bump stocks as machine guns.
The Hearing Protection Act, given the current makeup of Congress, is a dead letter. What more could the President or the ATF do to limit suppressor ownership?.....
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/06/luis-valdes/are-suppressors-next-trump-i-dont-lik (https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/06/luis-valdes/are-suppressors-next-trump-i-dont-lik)
-
(http://i63.tinypic.com/6jd8pi.jpg)
-
He Fights!!!
-
They'll say I shouldn't have posted mine in 2nd Amendment.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,363993.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,363993.0.html)
President Trump Critical of Firearm Suppressors After VA Beach Shooting
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/03/president-trump-critical-firearm-suppressors-after-va-beach-shooting/ (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/03/president-trump-critical-firearm-suppressors-after-va-beach-shooting/)
-
His 'NY Liberal' is bubbling up to the surface, again.
-
The next 'bump stock'. I'm sure apologists will say this isn't an attack on the 2nd Amendment.
For what reason, other than to silently commit a murder, would a gun owner need or use a "suppressor?
-
For what reason, other than to silently commit a murder, would a gun owner need or use a "suppressor?
Suppressors do not make guns silent. What they will do is reduce the muzzle blast to a level that will not damage your hearing if you fire the weapon without ear protection.
-
Suppressors do not make guns silent. What they will do is reduce the muzzle blast to a level that will not damage your hearing if you fire the weapon without ear protection.
Arguments like this do not help your case. The Virginia Beach shooter didn't use a suppressor to protect his hearing.
-
Arguments like this do not help your case.
But he is correct. That is exactly what they are used for.
Maybe you watch too many criminal cases on TV.
Next case, counselor.
-
It matters not. I see that there is no way that the bill, H.R.155 - Hearing Protection Act, or any another variant thereof will ever be passed. I see that the best way is to form a NFA Trust to purchase NFA items such as suppressors and SBRs.
-
Arguments like this do not help your case. The Virginia Beach shooter didn't use a suppressor to protect his hearing.
@Elderberry is absolutely correct. Suppressors don’t perform as seen in movies. Fire a gun indoors, without a suppressor, then with one. One is deafening, the other is loud. Stop pushing liberal talking points and embarrassing yourself.
-
Arguments like this do not help your case. The Virginia Beach shooter didn't use a suppressor to protect his hearing.
Nor did he use it to kill anyone.
-
Silencer Sound Comparison Chart - Dakota Silencer:http://www.dakotasilencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Silencer_Sound_Comparsion_chart.pdf (http://www.dakotasilencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Silencer_Sound_Comparsion_chart.pdf)
-
For what reason, other than to silently commit a murder, would a gun owner need or use a "suppressor?
Hearing protection.
I take it you never have been around firearms? If you are in a situation like in your home if someone kicks the door in, you don't have time to go find your ear plugs. It also improves your situational awareness. A firearm going off in an enclosed space can dizzy you quickly if not prepared. This is a determent if someone is defending themselves in a critical situation.
That is, unless you like permanent hearing damage.
-
Suppressors do not make guns silent. What they will do is reduce the muzzle blast to a level that will not damage your hearing if you fire the weapon without ear protection.
Too many people learn about firearms from movies instead of experience. They think suppressors make loud guns sound like little clicks or poofs.
-
For what reason, other than to silently commit a murder, would a gun owner need or use a "suppressor?
If you are hunting, and you fire w/o a suppressor, you can scare off the other game in the area.
If you hunt with a suppressor, it is less likely to have the other game run off and hide.
-
But he is correct. That is exactly what they are used for. Maybe you watch too many criminal cases on TV. Next case, counselor.
First you all argued in favor of bump stocks because there are other than nefarious reasons to adjust a firearm for rapid fire --- which the shooter in the Virginia Beach massacre did. Now you're asking people to believe this same man who murdered 12 people and also used a suppressor --- did so to protect his hearing?
Are you writing a book on how to lose a debate?
-
First you all argued in favor of bump stocks because there are other than nefarious reasons to adjust a firearm for rapid fire --- which the shooter in the Virginia Beach massacre did. Now you're asking people to believe this same man who murdered 12 people and also used a suppressor --- did so to protect his hearing?
Are you writing a book on how to lose a debate?
So because one person uses something for illegal purposes, it should be banned for everyone?
Why not just extend that logic to the gun itself, not just the suppressor?
Guess what, we supposedly live in a free country. We should not have to justify a need nor should we be subject to collective justice (I believe the term is 'social justice'), where individual rights are suppressed (no pun intended) for the greater good (sic).
-
So because one person uses something for illegal purposes, it should be banned for everyone?
Why not just extend that logic to the gun itself, not just the suppressor?
Guess what, we supposedly live in a free country. We should not have to justify a need nor should we be subject to collective justice (I believe the term is 'social justice'), where individual rights are suppressed (no pun intended) for the greater good (sic).
People are being slaughtered in school and work ... innocent people just living what we call "everyday life". And people are rightfully scared and fed up.
Proponents who believe individual rights means unrestricted gun ownership should have an answer for those asking why your gun ownership rights can so freely intrude on an individual's right to life.
Gun activists might do better if they find their humanity before shooting off another kneejerk reply to proposed gun restrictions.
-
@ABX
Good, you know about weapon suppressors/silencers. Taking them off the market means nothing as one can be easily made. This notice along with instructions how to make one (if a person wants to make one, he/she is not going to check regulations in their city/county/state/country to see if it is legal):
"Note: It is illegal to build a silencer for anything that fires a projectile without a $200 tax stamp on a Form 1 under the National Firearms Act, unless you are a licensed Class 3 Firearms dealer. This article is for demonstration purposes only! Some counties/municipalities, states, and countries ban silencers altogether, and because many paintball gun suppressors can be used for firearms as well, they too may be illegal in your area. Check your municipality's, state's, and country's laws on this matter before proceeding."
-
Close. Other than "Form1", only a Class-II manufacturer (a FFL holder licensed as a "Manufacture of Firearms" or Type-07 license that has paid a Special Occupational Tax Stamp or SOT) can manufacture NFA firearms (other than destructive devices) tax free, but they pay a larger annual tax which ranges from $500 to $1000 to cover manufacturing.
-
People are being slaughtered in school and work ... innocent people just living what we call "everyday life". And people are rightfully scared and fed up.
Proponents who believe individual rights means unrestricted gun ownership should have an answer for those asking why your gun ownership rights can so freely intrude on an individual's right to life.
Gun activists might do better if they find their humanity before shooting off another kneejerk reply to proposed gun restrictions.
Merely succumbing to media propaganda.
Look up how many times firearms are successfully used in defense annually - a number that dwarfs all use of firearms to commit murder/suicide - Nearly by an order of magnitude.
Trading all those defenses to put up barriers to criminals in the form of gun control - barriers that the criminals themselves ignore - is simply preposterous.
Gun ownership should be encouraged, not curtailed.
That IS humanity.
-
People are being slaughtered in school and work ... innocent people just living what we call "everyday life". And people are rightfully scared and fed up.
Proponents who believe individual rights means unrestricted gun ownership should have an answer for those asking why your gun ownership rights can so freely intrude on an individual's right to life.
Gun activists might do better if they find their humanity before shooting off another kneejerk reply to proposed gun restrictions.
I think that you may have lost your focus.
All kinds of terrible tragedies occur, virtually every day of the week, somewhere.
It is never government's job to prevent all tragedies (for to do that, all liberty would be lost).
There are a couple of sayings, as crude as they may be, that describe reality:
1. Shit happens.
2. Life isn't fair.
Using your logic ("... rights can so freely intrude on an individual's right to life."), you imply that rights need to be curtailed so as to not 'intrude' on others' lives.
What happens when some deranged person runs their 5 ton box truck (or even an everyday sedan) onto a crowded sidewalk and kills many? I am sure that you would NOT support curbing everyone's ability of own and operate a 5 ton box truck (or even an everyday sedan) because one random individual killed many with it?
Same here. It is not government's role to take away any of our liberties because of the action of a random individual.
-
Merely succumbing to media propaganda. Look up how many times firearms are successfully used in defense annually - a number that dwarfs all use of firearms to commit murder/suicide - Nearly by an order of magnitude. Trading all those defenses to put up barriers to criminals in the form of gun control - barriers that the criminals themselves ignore - is simply preposterous.
Gun ownership should be encouraged, not curtailed. That IS humanity.
@roamer_1
Well, that person, supposed to be a conservative preserving individual rights, wanting weapons to be taken away, doesn't get it that if someone working at that building had a weapon, the killer would have been killed right away.
Another stupid non-thinking thing is a sign on the door of a business saying, "No weapons allowed". CVS put up those signs a year or so ago, and I will never enter one. Law abiding people will honor a rule/law, bad guys never- ever- forever- will.
-
People are being slaughtered in school and work ... innocent people just living what we call "everyday life". And people are rightfully scared and fed up.
Proponents who believe individual rights means unrestricted gun ownership should have an answer for those asking why your gun ownership rights can so freely intrude on an individual's right to life.
Gun activists might do better if they find their humanity before shooting off another kneejerk reply to proposed gun restrictions.
I feel compassion for the obese but will still reject any solution to obesity that involves banning cutlery.
Because I refuse to accept the left’s flawed and self serving premise does not mean I lack humanity.
-
Well, that person, supposed to be a conservative preserving individual rights, wanting weapons to be taken away, doesn't get it that if someone working at that building had a weapon, the killer would have been killed right away.
@Victoria33
Her business. She probably lives in a highly restrictive county or city... And more power to her if she wants to believe the fallacy that police and gun control keep you safe.
Like always, that's not enough for the liberal mind. She has to impose her thinking on me, over two thousand miles away, which is none of her damn business. @Right_in_Virginia
Another stupid non-thinking thing is a sign on the door of a business saying, "No weapons allowed". CVS put up those signs a year or so ago, and I will never enter one. Law abiding people will honor a rule/law, bad guys never- ever- forever- will.
That's right.
Criminals will always have guns. Any half decent machinist can make one every bit as good as anything you can buy over the counter. (and, BTW, I am a fair machinist myself)
-
@roamer_1
And there is this: Several months ago, the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth, which our church is in, sent a message to all members of the churches in the Diocese, that they were putting together men in every church, with a weapon to protect the church members. It s more than one man at a church, but I don't remember how many each church would have. They asked for volunteers of men who had a carry permit to contact them if they wanted to be in this group. They are stationed at places where the bad guy could enter the church.
If we eliminate weapons, only the bad guys will have them to enter our church and kill us. Now, it is likely the bad guy will be killed on the spot once he shows the weapon.
-
@roamer_1
And there is this: Several months ago, the Catholic Disease of Fort Worth, which our church is in, sent a message to all members of the churches in the Disease, that they were putting together men in every church, with a weapon to protect the church members. It s more than one man at a church, but I don't remember how many each church would have. They asked for volunteers of men who had a carry permit to contact them if they wanted to be in this group. They are stationed at places where the bad guy could enter the church.
If we eliminate weapons, only the bad guys will have them to enter our church and kill us. Now, it is likely the bad guy will be killed on the spot once he shows the weapon.
@Victoria33
Yep, I get it. My kid is LEO and chief of security at his church (a gratis position)
-
@Victoria33
Her business. She probably lives in a highly restrictive county or city... And more power to her if she wants to believe the fallacy that police and gun control keep you safe.
Like always, that's not enough for the liberal mind. She has to impose her thinking on me, over two thousand miles away, which is none of her damn business. @Right_in_Virginia
Are you @roamer_1 and @Victoria33 really so obtuse that you think I'm trying to impose something on you? I am trying to tell you kneejerk reactionaries that you're losing the bleeping debate.
And what you do is sure in hell my damn business --- because it affects me.
So pull your collective knees out of your navels and find a better, more convincing way to debate this issue. You're losing a generation.
No one gives a rat's ass that you protect your hearing with silencers .... the majority only care the guy who just gunned down a dozen people guilty only of being at work used one to kill them.
The generation gearing up for power hears your arguments and hears you defend the right to commit slaughter. They have grown up with this killing and they want it stopped. So, pull it together ... because they are coming for your guns. And your answers to the issue are just feeding their resolve.
-
Are you @roamer_1 and @Victoria33 really so obtuse that you think I'm trying to impose something on you?
@Right_in_Virginia
Sure you are.
And what you do is sure in hell my damn business --- because it affects me.
No it doesn't. I have ZERO effect on Virginia.
But national gun controls certainly would effect me, all the way out here in MT where guns and all that goes with them are a necessity.
So pull your collective knees out of your navels and find a better, more convincing way to debate this issue. You're losing a generation.
I gave you the convincing argument upthread. Just look at how many times firearms successfully STOP violence.
No one gives a rat's ass that you protect your hearing with silencers .... the majority only care the guy who just gunned down a dozen people guilty only of being at work used one to kill them.
@Right_in_Virginia
Riiiight. In a government building where guns aren't allowed - Probably in a town and county where guns aren't allowed. How's that gun-free reservation working out for you now?
The generation gearing up for power hears your arguments and hears you defend the right to commit slaughter. They have grown up with this killing and they want it stopped. So, pull it together ... because they are coming for your guns. And your answers to the issue are just feeding their resolve.
Let em come. Then we'll have even more occasion for guns to stop violence.
Not that they will. You'll never take the guns out of the Rockies, I don't care who you are.
-
And btw, @Right_in_Virginia , any moron can make a bump stock, and any moron can make a silencer... In about 5 minutes.
I make and use a silencer every time I go layin for coyotes. Because without the silencer, you may get one or two... But with the silencer, you mightl get three or four.
No license, no special gear, and no cost. And I throw it away when I am done. I can literally make a pretty effective supressor out of common stuff right in your own house.
How the hell do these laws your boy favors stop that?
-
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2PVEOSqQDJQ#)
‘Second Amendment - 100%’ - Trump at 2:25 mark
‘It’s about safety. It’s about hearing protection. It’s a health issue, frankly, for me.’ - Trump Jr at 2:50 mark
-
And btw, @Right_in_Virginia , any moron can make a bump stock, and any moron can make a silencer... In about 5 minutes.
I make and use a silencer every time I go layin for coyotes. Because without the silencer, you may get one or two... But with the silencer, you mightl get three or four.
No license, no special gear, and no cost. And I throw it away when I am done. I can literally make a pretty effective supressor out of common stuff right in your own house.
You have so missed my point that I can only believe you did so deliberately because it's easier for you to sit on your horse and talk about what a grand and smart cowboy you are.
Every time you get sucked into the debate on liberal terms, you lose more of your gun rights. Maybe not today, but you're not going to like tomorrow. So keep talking about silencers and how you can make one .... yeah, that's the strategy to winning the hearts and minds of the generation coming into power.
It pains me to have to say this, but you're becoming the liberal's poster child for how to debate the gun issue like a useful idiot.
Good luck to you. And your horse.
-
For what reason, other than to silently commit a murder, would a gun owner need or use a "suppressor?
If I was wide awake at night watching Netflix and heard somebody break glass, I would definitely use a silencer.
Why wake everybody up? wink777
-
It pains me to have to say this, but you're becoming the liberal's poster child for how to debate the gun issue like a useful idiot.
That’s almost funny, coming from someone who came out of the starting block, parroting Kirsten Gillibrand type idiocy.
Kirsten Gillibrand
@SenGillibrand
When someone gets shot by a gun with a silencer, it's quiet. Witnesses might not hear. Police will be less likely to track down the shooter.
8:13 AM · Mar 14, 2017 · TweetDeck
-
@Right_in_Virginia
@Cyber Liberty
When you write a poster, your speech is always angry and full of curse-type words. You continually personally attack the poster, calling the poster hateful words. There is no thoughtful discussion of the subject. That is why I do not usually answer you. Here are some examples (consider the rest in quotes):
.. really so obtuse...ykneejerk reactionaries... sure in hell... my damn business ---pull your collective knees out of your navels... a rat's ass...
-
@Right_in_Virginia
@Cyber Liberty
When you write a poster, your speech is always angry and full of curse-type words.
:bs: 88devil
:seeya: @Victoria33
@Cyber Liberty
-
:bs: 88devil
:seeya: @Victoria33
@Cyber Liberty
:laugh:
-
Arguments like this do not help your case. The Virginia Beach shooter didn't use a suppressor to protect his hearing.
He used it so they could be banned.
-
You have so missed my point that I can only believe you did so deliberately because it's easier for you to sit on your horse and talk about what a grand and smart cowboy you are.
@Right_in_Virginia
Which part of 'any moron can make a bump stock, and any moron can make a silencer' makes me a smart cowboy?
The point in fact is that these laws will do absolutely *nothing* to limit silencers. Just like Tumpy's totally stupid bump stock law will do absolutely *nothing* to limit bump stocks. You might as well make a law against butter knives, as easy and ubiquitous as it is to make one.
But it does give more precedence for gun control, which is the point of doing it.
I ain't the one missing the point, YOU ARE.
Every time you get sucked into the debate on liberal terms, you lose more of your gun rights. Maybe not today, but you're not going to like tomorrow. So keep talking about silencers and how you can make one .... yeah, that's the strategy to winning the hearts and minds of the generation coming into power.
Well what the hell else is there to say? This is entirely ineffective. and will do nothing but set the table for even more control. Nothing will pacify liberals. You give em an inch they take a mile.
It pains me to have to say this, but you're becoming the liberal's poster child for how to debate the gun issue like a useful idiot.
Hey, I ain't the one backing a Republican president signing gun laws into place. That's the useful liberal idiot.
-
:bs: 88devil
:seeya: @Victoria33
@Cyber Liberty
That's not how to do it. Trump would have just denied he wrote it. sad.
-
First you all argued in favor of bump stocks because there are other than nefarious reasons to adjust a firearm for rapid fire --- which the shooter in the Virginia Beach massacre did. Now you're asking people to believe this same man who murdered 12 people and also used a suppressor --- did so to protect his hearing?
Are you writing a book on how to lose a debate?
Suppressors are primarily used to provide hearing protection for the shooter. Yes, a silencer can be misused, but so can other useful devices. A car can be used to ram a crowd.
I oppose attempts to ban certain classes of firearms or firearms accessories. Let folks own the firearms they want, so long as they are licensed, registered and insured.
-
@Victoria33
Yep, I get it. My kid is LEO and chief of security at his church (a gratis position)
The guy that sits behind me in church carries a gun on his ankle holster. He's ex-military and likely a good shot, or at least I hope he is...lol. Sadly our church has set up men stationed at the entrances/exits for protection... Sad you have to be protected to go worship.
-
With the outlawing of bump stocks and now silencers and the implementation of 'red flag' laws he really is making it harder to get away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.
-
The guy that sits behind me in church carries a gun on his ankle holster. He's ex-military and likely a good shot, or at least I hope he is...lol. Sadly our church has set up men stationed at the entrances/exits for protection... Sad you have to be protected to go worship.
@mrpotatohead
It's some different here, and of course it depends upon the church... But folks carry all the time anyway, and it has never been socially unacceptable to carry in church. But there are more and more city folks in town that get ruffled at that sort of thing...
To me, it's just a part of me. Hanging a pistol on me is the very same thing as stuffin that big folding knife in my back pocket, shoving that wicked sharp little three-blade sliver-gitter in my front pocket or strapping a multitool to my belt...
And yes, my EDC tools are on me even at church... And my go-bag and belt, a 357, and a 30/30 are in the pickup in the parking lot. Not a thing... It's just where that stuff always is. It ain't no different than the worm-drive Skil saw sitting in the sawbox, along with a ton of other tools.
It would be extremely strange to me for someone to wonder why I bring a Skil saw to church. I ain't really bringing it to church... It just happens to live in the pickup I drove to church. Same thing with the stuff I carry on me. That's just where it goes.
I've got a pretty little set of matched 9's in shoulder holsters... I don't ever use em... A little pea shooter like that ain't of much use... Maybe I oughta get a suit and use that for more civilized social functions... Would that be better?
But as to the guards at the doors - That is nothing new. That has been present since the Early Church.
-
the majority only care the guy who just gunned down a dozen people guilty only of being at work used one to kill them.
1) the people gunned down were working in a "gun free zone"...also known as a shooting gallery. had that building not ben a GFZ...a) the shooting wouldn't have happened or b) he would have been stopped way before he had a chance to gun down a dozen people. Oh and it's already illegal to own a suppressor unless you've been approved by the Feds and have your tax stamp.
2) despite having suppressors on both of his handguns...people heard the shots being fired. You can hear the shots in the background of the radio calls.
3) it's clear that there are some people so totally attached to the posterior end of the President that if he came out tomorrow and declared his support for implementing the updated AWB that DiFi has pushed recently...they'd sound like a bunch of clapping seals in their support and chastise the rest of us for his attempt to take away our right to own certain types of firearms.
-
With the outlawing of bump stocks and now silencers and the implementation of 'red flag' laws he really is making it harder to get away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.
Fact-check: True
:cool:
-
it's clear that there are some people so totally attached to the posterior end of the President that if he came out tomorrow and declared his support for implementing the updated AWB that DiFi has pushed recently...they'd sound like a bunch of clapping seals in their support and chastise the rest of us for his attempt to take away our right to own certain types of firearms.
He was already down with Feinstein and Klobuchar, in the wake of Stoneman-Douglas.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=uOHsNIxwQlc#)
-
Look, all of this hub-bub is based on a stupid throwaway comment.
AFAIK there is no movement to do anything about suppressors above and beyond the existing (ridiculous) regulations.
The problem is (as it is in too many cases) is that Trump makes stupid comments about things that he hasn't thought through in the least.
"I don't like them at all." was just a plain dumb comment to make.... and we know why he makes them.... he thinks that he is going to draw more people into his corner.... I can't keep count of the number of these dumb pandering statements that he throws out there.....
:thud:
-
Look, all of this hub-bub is based on a stupid throwaway comment.
AFAIK there is no movement to do anything about suppressors above and beyond the existing (ridiculous) regulations.
The problem is (as it is in too many cases) is that Trump makes stupid comments about things that he hasn't thought through in the least.
"I don't like them at all." was just a plain dumb comment to make.... and we know why he makes them.... he thinks that he is going to draw more people into his corner.... I can't keep count of the number of these dumb pandering statements that he throws out there.....
:thud:
Maybe, but he did something similar, concerning bump stocks, after the Vegas shooting. Now, they’re banned. It is suppressors now. Don’t be surprised if it is high-capacity magazines, somewhere down the road. He has previously expressed reservations about them, along with assault weapons, in the past.
-
Maybe, but he did something similar, concerning bump stocks, after the Vegas shooting. Now, they’re banned. It is suppressors now. Don’t be surprised if it is high-capacity magazines, somewhere down the road. He has previously expressed reservations about them, along with assault weapons, in the past.
First thing he said, too, was that when you ban something, the 'bad' guyz aren't going to give them up.
To me, in 'Trumpspeak' that meant that if you already have one, hide it.
And if you don't have one, hurry the hell up and get one.
-
Arguments like this do not help your case. The Virginia Beach shooter didn't use a suppressor to protect his hearing.
Being quiet wasnt on the agenda, either, if both firearms were not suppressed. One was not.
-
I think that you may have lost your focus.
All kinds of terrible tragedies occur, virtually every day of the week, somewhere.
It is never government's job to prevent all tragedies (for to do that, all liberty would be lost).
There are a couple of sayings, as crude as they may be, that describe reality:
1. Shit happens.
2. Life isn't fair.
Using your logic ("... rights can so freely intrude on an individual's right to life."), you imply that rights need to be curtailed so as to not 'intrude' on others' lives.
What happens when some deranged person runs their 5 ton box truck (or even an everyday sedan) onto a crowded sidewalk and kills many? I am sure that you would NOT support curbing everyone's ability of own and operate a 5 ton box truck (or even an everyday sedan) because one random individual killed many with it?
Same here. It is not government's role to take away any of our liberties because of the action of a random individual.
But if we took the mufflers off the 5 ton box trucks, people could hear them coming and get out of the way (Loud pipes save lives!)
Just as a bump stock does not make a semi automatic rifle a machine gun (it only allows the trigger to be pulled more efficiently, not more than one round to be fired each time the trigger is pulled) a suppressor is only a device to reduce the sound of the firearm being discharged.
As far as the Virginia Beach incident goes, the shooter has been described as having two firearms, one with a suppressor, one without, and a lady who survived in a closed office heard the shots being fired. The shooter was not particularly interested in stealth, regardless, but apparently went through the building killing either specific people or targets of opportunity. We won't know a heck of a lot about the incident unless the "focus on the victims" comes off enough to describe the incident more fully.
-
Maybe, but he did something similar, concerning bump stocks, after the Vegas shooting. Now, they’re banned. It is suppressors now. Don’t be surprised if it is high-capacity magazines, somewhere down the road. He has previously expressed reservations about them, along with assault weapons, in the past.
Obviously he should just keep his mouth shut on these issues.
-
But if we took the mufflers off the 5 ton box trucks, people could hear them coming and get out of the way (Loud pipes save lives!)
Just as a bump stock does not make a semi automatic rifle a machine gun (it only allows the trigger to be pulled more efficiently, not more than one round to be fired each time the trigger is pulled) a suppressor is only a device to reduce the sound of the firearm being discharged.
As far as the Virginia Beach incident goes, the shooter has been described as having two firearms, one with a suppressor, one without, and a lady who survived in a closed office heard the shots being fired. The shooter was not particularly interested in stealth, regardless, but apparently went through the building killing either specific people or targets of opportunity. We won't know a heck of a lot about the incident unless the "focus on the victims" comes off enough to describe the incident more fully.
Indeed, unmuffle these vehicles!! For safety!
I need to correct one line of my post above, it should read:
It is never government's job to ATTEMPT TO prevent all tragedies (for to do that, all liberty would be lost).
Because they will never succeed.
-
Gun Owners of America Funds Challenge to National Firearms Act in U.S. Supreme Court
https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of-america-funds-challenge-to-national-firearms-act-in-u-s-supreme-court/ (https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of-america-funds-challenge-to-national-firearms-act-in-u-s-supreme-court/)
Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its litigating arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), today continued their defense of Jeremy Kettler, a disabled combat veteran, against a conviction for violating the National Firearms Act.
The Obama Justice Department brought criminal felony charges against Jeremy for illegally possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor under the authority of the Kansas “Second Amendment Protection Act.â€
The Kansas statute declares that any suppressor manufactured, possessed, and used within the borders of Kansas is exempt from federal law. Relying on that Kansas law, in 2014 Jeremy purchased a suppressor from a local military surplus store, but did not register it with ATF pursuant to the National Firearms Act (NFA).
Believing he was following the law, Jeremy posted a video about his new suppressor on Facebook, and ATF swooped in. Rather than simply requiring Jeremy to register his suppressor, the feds instead chose felony prosecution — to make an example of Jeremy, and to intimidate all who resist federal power over guns. Jeremy was indicted, and convicted of possessing an unregistered silencer, and now this veteran is a federal felon.
Jeremy’s petition first challenges the legitimacy of the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and thereafter upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937 under the constitutional power of Congress to “lay and collect taxes.†The petition argues that the NFA as it exists today no longer can be justified as a so-called “tax.â€
In fact, each of the reasons the Supreme Court gave in 1937, finding it to be a tax, no longer apply today, 82 years later. Rather, the NFA has become what Justice Frankfurter once described as regulation “wrapped … in the verbal cellophane of a revenue measure†— an unabashed gun control regulatory scheme, designed not to raise revenue for the federal government, but instead to keep NFA items out of the hands of Americans.
Next, Jeremy’s petition challenges the Tenth Circuit’s absurd holding that the Second Amendment applies only to “bearable arms†— but not firearm accessories, such as suppressors. The petition points out that the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits all have concluded that the Second Amendment extends beyond actual firearms to ammunition, magazines, the ability to purchase firearms in gun stores, and the right to practice at shooting ranges.
Finally, Jeremy’s petition argues that, if the Supreme Court continues to uphold the NFA as a “tax,†then it is allowing Congress to impose a tax on a constitutionally-protected right — something which the Supreme Court has long said to be unconstitutional.
More at link
-
Supreme Court to decide to hear US Army vet’s ‘unconstitutional’ gun suppressor this week after national controversy
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/06/supreme-court-to-rule-on-us-army-vets-unconstitutional-gun-suppressor-this-week-after-national-controversy/ (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/06/supreme-court-to-rule-on-us-army-vets-unconstitutional-gun-suppressor-this-week-after-national-controversy/)
The fate of a disabled U.S. Army veteran convicted of possessing an untaxed firearm suppressor is in the hands of the Supreme Court, which is slated to decide whether or not to accept his petition this Thursday.
Jeremy Kettler has been appealing to the higher courts since his November 2016 conviction in Kansas of possessing a suppressor he purchased to avoid worsening his hearing loss suffered during his military service – possession that allegedly violated the National Firearms Act (NFA), according to Guns.com in January.
-
Obviously he should just keep his mouth shut on these issues.
That ship has long sailed. Like it or not, we're better for it.
Especially with what has essentially become the [Deep] State Media.
He goes directly to the American People, unvarnished and in plain covfefe English. :laugh:
-
Interesting take from Don Jr. Can't argue with any of it.
Dated but still holds true, I'm sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=357&v=P_LOxq6j4FM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=357&v=P_LOxq6j4FM)