Tread harder, daddy! MAGA fanbois, come defend your 2A-trampling president

[Horn chaser]

Paul,
Can you post the actual article in the link? I use ad blocker and it won't let me see it without disabling adblocker, and I don't do that for any site...
thx.

Here ya go.

President Donald Trump expressed a unfavorable opinion about firearm suppressors on Monday following the Virginia Beach shooting.
As investigations continue into the massacre that left 12 people dead on Friday, authorities have told the media that the perpetrator had a silencer on the gun he used to carry out his attack.
Before leaving the White House Sunday for his state visit to the United Kingdom, Trump was asked how he felt about silencers, and he responded “I don’t like them at all.”
Trump’s remarks were hard to hear since he was about to board the helicopter waiting to take him to Air Force One, so here’s the White House’s transcript on the brief exchange.
Reporter: “The suspect in the Virginia Beach shooting used a silencer on his weapon. Do you believe that silencers should be restricted?”
Trump: “I don’t like them at all.”

[Horn chaser]

looks like Artos beat me to it and described the video spot on.

[HighwayHunter]

Y’all are gonna have to educate me on the 2nd amendment. How do bumpstocks and silencers fall under the 2nd amendment. Does not seem to infringe one “ the right to bear arms”, to me.

You’re gonna have to finish the sentence and you’ll understand “shall not be infringed”. Bump stocks, then high capacity magazines, then suppressors, then pistol grips, then no semi-autos...you get the picture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clay C]

Y’all are gonna have to educate me on the 2nd amendment. How do bumpstocks and silencers fall under the 2nd amendment. Does not seem to infringe one “ the right to bear arms”, to me.

Are you okay with them banning a pistol grip on an AR15? A flash hider? What about a fore grip? Magazines over a certain round count? detachable magazines all together?

None of those things are guns.



Let's say that silencers and bump stocks are not protected by the 2nd A. Does it make it any better that the government can just ban pieces of plastic and metal because they deem it scary?

[Artos]

How do we even know what question was asked?? I'm not trusting the crap in the link I posted, much less the OP's. Nothing can be verified at this point.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Rocky, munitions are not firearms...you OK with them being banned?? You can throw your firearm at the bad guy once you run out of ammo. How can banning ammo infringe your rights?? Not a firearm!!

[Hooverfb]

I've found that so far from reading this I'm a little disappointed in Crenshaw (even though I get where hes coming from) and Trump talks to much too quick.

[Coup de Grace]

Go Trump.

[rocky]

How do we even know what question was asked?? I'm not trusting the crap in the link I posted, much less the OP's. Nothing can be verified at this point.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Rocky, munitions are not firearms...you OK with them being banned?? You can throw your firearm at the bad guy once you run out of ammo. How can banning ammo infringe your rights?? Not a firearm!!

Ammo is a necessary ingredient in a firearm. Bumpstocks and silencers aren’t. Don’t silencers require a special license to own,? Beyond the scope of the 2nd amendment?

[HighwayHunter]

Ammo is a necessary ingredient in a firearm. Bumpstocks and silencers aren’t. Don’t silencers require a special license to own,? Beyond the scope of the 2nd amendment?

Pistol grips aren’t necessary. Semi auto isn’t necessary. You have to have a background check to buy a rifle. Shoulder slings aren’t necessary. Red dot sights only make it easier to kill people with fast sight acquisition. See how this works? You can try and justify neoconservative actions all you’d like, but in reality you’ll just look like a fool. Incremental knocks on our second amendment will kill it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rocky]

Pistol grips aren’t necessary. Semi auto isn’t necessary. You have to have a background check to buy a rifle. Shoulder slings aren’t necessary. Red dot sights only make it easier to kill people with fast sight acquisition. See how this works? You can try and justify neoconservative actions all you’d like, but in reality you’ll just look like a fool. Incremental knocks on our second amendment will kill it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First, I’m no fool. I own guns, lots and lots of guns. Y’all are very willing to pay a fee or tax if you will, to own a piece of equipment that definitely falls outside the scope of the 2nd amendment. These pieces have been regulated seperatly for years. Now that you are able to pay this “tax”, and own one of these accessories, that were previously illegal, you’re gonna vilify our POTUS for rethinking these extended liberties.

[HighwayHunter]

First, I’m no fool. I own guns, lots and lots of guns. Y’all are very willing to pay a fee or tax if you will, to own a piece of equipment that definitely falls outside the scope of the 2nd amendment. These pieces have been regulated seperatly for years. Now that you are able to pay this “tax”, and own one of these accessories, that were previously illegal, you’re gonna vilify our POTUS for rethinking these extended liberties.

No, I’m vilifying every politician that has limited our freedoms. Trump just so happens to be going along with the rest of them. I think suppressors and bump stocks should be legal and come stock with an AR. However you would make the argument that they don’t fall under the second amendment. Using your logic, any accessory that isn’t iron sights or a trigger shouldn’t be on a gun and we shouldn’t be allowed to have semi automatic guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[armadillophil]

I could care less about bumpstocks and silencers but I understand the slippery slope that comes with giving in on laws that restrict our 2nd amendment rights

[rocky]

No, I’m vilifying every politician that has limited our freedoms. Trump just so happens to be going along with the rest of them. I think suppressors and bump stocks should be legal and come stock with an AR. However you would make the argument that they don’t fall under the second amendment. Using your logic, any accessory that isn’t iron sights or a trigger shouldn’t be on a gun and we shouldn’t be allowed to have semi automatic guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong. Aside from bumpstocks that almost turns a semiauto into a full auto, name the other accessories that have to be licensed to own. Scopes don’t have to be licensed. As far as I know, night vision scopes don’t have to be licensed. Pistol grips don’t have to be licensed. Extended mags are either banned in some States, or don’t have to be licensed. In other words, you are willing to pay a “special tax” to own an accessory that falls outside the scope of the 2nd amendment.

[Artos]

Ammo is a necessary ingredient in a firearm. Bumpstocks and silencers aren’t. Don’t silencers require a special license to own,? Beyond the scope of the 2nd amendment?

What is your objective?? The anti's are targeting ammo full force as an angle to limit your 2nd, much more so than suppressors or bump stocks. So you are going to fight for ammo but **** off suppressors?? You now have a graduating scale on what you perceive to be protected under the 2nd?? I can promise you the anti's are not.

Suppressors are regulated on the same basis as full autos yet are not a firearm...they were classified to fall under NFA back in the day because some game agencies thought they would be used for poaching, yet state after state has approved them as a valuable tool for hearing preservation. Now because of recent shooting and it's unverified use, you seem to be condemning them not worthy of being protected under the 2nd because they are not a necessary ingredient??

Stop picking the fly **** out of the pepper...your ammo is at much a larger risk than suppressors. I'm not sure what you are supporting or not or trying to gain from the **** poor argument in front of me.

[rocky]

What is your objective?? The anti's are targeting ammo full force as an angle to limit your 2nd, much more so than suppressors or bump stocks. So you are going to fight for ammo but **** off suppressors?? You now have a graduating scale on what you perceive to be protected under the 2nd?? I can promise you the anti's are not.

Suppressors are regulated on the same basis as full autos yet are not a firearm...they were classified to fall under NFA back in the day because some game agencies thought they would be used for poaching, yet state after state has approved them as a valuable tool for hearing preservation. Now because of recent shooting and it's unverified use, you seem to be condemning them not worthy of being protected under the 2nd because they are not a necessary ingredient??

Stop picking the fly **** out of the pepper...your ammo is at much a larger risk than suppressors. I'm not sure what you are supporting or not or trying to gain from the **** poor argument in front of me.

There’s an old saying. “ Lose the battle, win the war”. The harder We keep fighting for accessories that fall outside the scope of the 2nd amendment, the harder the anti’s will fight to tax, ban, or overprice our ammo. There is hearing protection available other than suppressors. Had them for years. Personally, I think that using the hearing protection argument is B.S. I’d rather give up my suppressors than give up my ammo.