I just want to remind gun supporters of Trumps Stance on guns

how did Biden/Clinton/Obama justices vote on BRUEN
how about Trump's that is why the major gun banning groups support BIDEN
the goal of gun banning groups is to destroy legal gun ownership and USE in the USA. no target shooting means no gun club memberships. NO sales of guns means no gun shows. No gun organizations means no groups to marshal votes against the democrats and their bullshit claims that we don't need to be tougher on real criminals

that's their goal. to get rid of groups that oppose them

 

Sadly, human life is delicate and it doesn't take much to end it. The desire to harm another being or ones self does not come from animate objects. Politicians all enjoy armed security. I don't see their lives as any more valuable than the lives of those they serve.

 

Actually it can “come from objects” as there is a phenomena known as the “weapons effect”

 

Interesting. So why are acts of violence by CCW holders extremely rare? They have their object with them all day.

 

Facts are rarely effective concerning crime statistic arguments with gun banners because crime control is only a facade that they claim motivates their desire to take a steaming dump all over our second amendment rights. Since controlling crime has almost no part of what motivates them, attack that pretext of a reason is rarely going to matter to them

 

In reality public servants are less important than those they serve. sadly they think otherwise. Remember-in the Revolutionary war and for part of the civil war-officers LED the troops.

 

Yep, time to stop the madness…at least Trump won’t aggressively pursue an anti 2A agenda.

not true; each state has specific rules for tabulating write in candidates which usually involves filing the appropriate papaerwork to be recognized as a write in candidate. Think team Trump won’t be prepared for that? Then too, the GOP can with draw from a states’s primary election and select their candidate in a Caucus; which I suspect will have a hard time keeping Trump from the ballot in November.
The Dem efforts to keep Trump from competing in the November election may backfire dramatically. They’d been better off letting the GOP fight it out, and just letting voters decide in Nov. I think their shenanigans will result in a GOP Victory regardless of their candidate. More and more Nov is shaping to be a referendum against Biden, a trend last few elections; referendums against a specific candidate.

 

Because of Trumps divisiveness and conduct following the last election, I can't support him anymore. If that gives the election to Biden, then that's on his die hard supporters. There are plenty of better candidates among Republicans. As for the second amendment, I don't see Trump as a threat in any way. He banned bump stocks which is in keeping with the spirit of the law against fully automatic weapons. And he said he'd look into silencers which doesn't make him a wild eyed anti gunner. George Washington said that the silence of the American peoples firearms is proof that they are in safe and sane hands. The invention and availability of silencers detracts from Washington's wise observance of reality. It is good to know when and from where shots are fired in a free country/society, imo. Otherwise, what's the point but to murder in secret.

 

It’s crazy to me to see so many pro 2nd people open to further deterioration of the right. The bump stock was not a machine gun by definition until Trump tried to unconstitutionally change the definition of a machine gun. Silencers are exactly what the 2nd is also meant to protect. It was said by Tench Coxe that the citizen is entitled to the same sword and shield as the military. I believe that falls into line with silencers.

 

I'm pretty sure that the military uses flash suppressor's, not silencers. Silencers are used by assassins. The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to conceal their report, which is what a silencer accomplishes. Taken too far, because a gun and bullet are designed to kill, it doesn't then give us the right to kill whom we may in keeping with the right to keep and bare weapons designed to kill. There are parameters to judgment. Likewise to the tangible liberties extended to the general population. You could say that the abuse of the liberty can than be dealt with in court. But do you want to fill our streets with fully automatic silenced weapons, and our courts in concert with the fall out? Were we a perfectly just and upright society, it might not be a problem. But as we are, I do not think it is wise to grant everyone access to all military might. Heck, even the military restricts its own members in a controlled environment. Could you imagine the chaos of a weapon heavy populace. It would be suicide. I don't see the point in that.

 

I do see a point in that. Do you think 9/11 would have happened if people were allowed to carry arms to defend themselves?

 

Tell me you've never used a suppressor other than by actually saying it.

You opinion reflects gross ignorance of suppressors, their functions, and limitations.
Suppressed weapons aren't silent, that's not what Washington was talking about, and even if it was that wouldn't change the Constitution.

 

I'm no expert. But I know enough. I don't believe the right to keep and bear arms is the right to conceal their report (noise), anymore than it is the right to kill whom we may, just because arms are designed to be used to kill. It also doesn't bother me that full auto firearms are restricted from the general public. It makes sense to me. That's my opinion.

 

I also have a gun that’s way deadlier than anything we are discussing. It literally locks on target like an F16. Do you think that is worthy of banning?

 

my nephew is an active duty LtC in the US special forces. He had combat tours in Iraq, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and a couple other places. He and his men often used suppressed M4 rifles and handguns-mainly for clearing houses or the overwatch snipers.

 

Point taken. Mine was that the general population shouldn't have, in the fullness of liberty, that which the military possesses in limited and controlled maneuvers.

 

here is my view. if it is the individual weapon of the average National guardsman-it is protected by the second amendment. If it is a firearm that civilian police have access to for use in civilian environments it is protected. Civilian police departments almost never have belt fed machine guns, anti tank rockets claymore mines, mortars or other man-portable artillery pieces. Almost every big city police department has military surplus M16 rifles, submachine guns and M4 Rifles

those all should be protected under the very holding of Miller

 

Your opinion is based on specious reasoning, as I'm trying to point out to you and which a reasonable person would already have googled about.

Let's try it with the spoon. HERE COMES THE AIRPLANE!!!!!!!!! *mouth noises*
Tell me how many decibels difference there is in suppressed and unsuppressed 9mm

 

Then tell me the point of irrelevance which is where you place the effectiveness of silencers.

 

In some anti gun nations, silencers or suppressors (they are pretty much the same in terms of what people are referring to) are as easy to get as the guns themselves-and sometimes easier. THE ONLY REASON why they are on the NFA list is due to the fact that during the depression, poachers were using these to take deer to feed their family. Game wardens would arrest a poacher only to see the local citizens refuse to convict. The addition of "silencers" to the NFA de facto ban list was to allow a federal prosecution of these poachers often in a big city venue rather than the rural one where most poachers operated. It was completely bullshit-like most of what FDR did concerning firearms

 

I promise you learn it better if you simply follow the socratic method as I am trying to lead you in.

How much of a sound reduction IS there from unsuppressed 9 milly to suppressed 9 milly?

If you want to do your homework ahead of time the questions which follow are:

And how loud is something that is the same decibel level of suppressed 9 milly? What ELSE is that loud?
and

Do you find it difficult to hear [that something else] generally speaking? Do you find [something else] to be quiet?

 

Trump said he'd look into the concern. That doesn't make him a gun grabber. Likewise the bump stock ban which he signed because bump stocks are contrary to the full auto restrictions. In that regard, he is aligned with the NRA who also supports the full auto restrictions. Please don't tell me that the NRA is a traitor to the Constitution when they stand squarely in the way of the gun grabbers.

 

Trump is a grabber because of the gun ban he instituted, amending a statute outside the actual process by executive fiat.

Your comparison of bump stocks reveals still further lack of subject matter expertise:

Bump stocks by definition do not function the same way full auto does. You have one pull of the trigger for one shot bullet. Full auto means you hold the trigger down and it continues to fire until jammed or out of ammo or you move your finger off the trigger.
So BY THE ****ING RULE THATS IN THE ****ING STATUTE BOOK bump stocks are not full auto. Which was what the courts already ruled.
Do try to keep up.
To say nothing of the 2nd ****ing amendment, which you don't care about.

The NRA: Is a money laundering organization that has approved of the gun control we have IE grabbers. They're only useful because idiots think they're THE gun rights org and target them for ****ery.
Further:


GOA, NAGR, and FPC are gun rights organizations. The NRA exists to part idiotic boomers and other rubes from their coin.


Still further: I notice you haven't spat those decibel numbers, or the follow up answers of what is also that loud and whether or not you find it difficult to hear such a thing.

Therefore: I mark your paper zero, and I'm going to tell the class the answer.

https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge/silencer-guide-with-decibel-level-testing/




You find an approaching subway to be quiet? You find a nighclub to be quiet? A ****ing leaf blower? You gonna tell me a JET ****ING ENGINE is quiet?

 

I didn't know that. I have never thought about or seen a need for one myself except when I occasionally hunt rabbits at night where I prefer discretion so as not to alarm any locals. That said, I see no spiritual or familial connection between silencers and the nature of the second amendment as a right. Again that's my opinion. I am also perfectly content with the divisions established by previous generations, with the GP having access to everything from slingshots to semi auto assault type rifles, with law enforcement having that and somewhat above, and the military having everything in a controlled and mission specific environment. This topic is about whether or not Trump is a threat to our second amendment because he said he'd look into concerns involving silencers if as President it came to his attention. IMO, Trump is in no way a threat to the second amendment as the OP posited. And I'm not even a Trump supporter. My beef with Trump is in other matters.

 

Trump isn't anti gun, but also he's not pro gun enough to understand the importance of it. That much is clear.

Who do you prefer for POTUS?