There is a petition started to tell Trump Do Not Ban Suppressors if you’re interested in signing it Click Here
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison
06-28-2019, 08:11 PM (This post was last modified: 06-28-2019, 08:17 PM by justonemorear.)
Red Dawn Wrote:This just came out today : The HEAR Act
Read it, not happy. What happened to them being unregulated, for hearing safety. A lot changed in 2 yrs, just like the rest.
Guess I'll have them until they get them! Wonder what they think the buy back value is and are they going to reimburse the tax stamp?
Ha I wouldn’t hold my breath on $200 tax stamp return and they would gladly buy back at around 40% fair market value
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison
A5BLASTER Wrote:Honestly I think y'all are putting the horse before the cart.
If they do end up banning them, Ohhh well, it's not like your rifle or pistol won't work with out it lmao.
You do understand what shall not be infringed means I hope !!
The local law enforcement or the feds should not be able to take them away if in fact you’re not a criminal or broken the law !! It’s a right that shall not be encroached on or taken away !!
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison
06-29-2019, 06:47 AM (This post was last modified: 06-29-2019, 08:42 AM by stanc.)
Red Dawn Wrote:You do understand what shall not be infringed means I hope !!
The local law enforcement or the feds should not be able to take them away if in fact you’re not a criminal or broken the law !! It’s a right that shall not be encroached on or taken away !!
Despite the "shall not be infringed" wording, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can place restrictions (and even prohibitions) on the right to keep and bear arms.
Red Dawn Wrote:You do understand what shall not be infringed means I hope !!
The local law enforcement or the feds should not be able to take them away if in fact you’re not a criminal or broken the law !! It’s a right that shall not be encroached on or taken away !!
RD:
Scream about it all you want. Facts are facts. Fact is that the government can and has put restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms -- just like Stan has said here and in about a dozen other 2A threads that I eventually locked because people started arguing over who said what and word meanings.
Thanks guys just trying to be pro active at keeping our voice heard about not taking away our God given rights but letting others help us protect them by supporting it in numbers the gov can see and not deny.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison
Red Dawn Wrote:Thanks guys just trying to be pro active at keeping our voice heard about not taking away our God given rights but letting others help us protect them by supporting it in numbers the gov can see and not deny.
RD:
You don't have to apologize for insisting that our rights are not infringed upon by our government.
You don't have to apologize for posting the subject although I locked the two previous threads on the same topic.
Signing an on line petition is useless. If it serves a ten second sound bite on TV, the politician will use it. If it doesn't, it is ignored.
What does work is supporting candidates who have the same beliefs and ideals -- and who can win.
So, no need to apologize. Maybe look at the two threads I locked and you will see that this one would head down the same path.
God forbid we have a thread to bring awareness to the issue.
If it's about supporting candidates that support the 2a,then let's make people aware of where politicians stand.
KS:
Not debating what you are saying. Yes, bring awareness to the issue. Yes, I.D. the people who are in support of our beliefs and those who are against them too. Yes, support candidates that support what we believe.
No on folks who seem to ignore the fact that the Government can interfere with the 2A and any other of the Bill of Rights, has already done so for decades, and the courts have backed the government in most cases. That is the reality of today so arguing the point that the Government 'can't' is mute.
So far no one has made a case that owning suppressors is a right under the 2A. Maybe that ought to be a start point but instead we get arguments over the power of the government when it is pretty apparent they surely can ban suppressors.
Then there is the question if President Trump can ban them at all. So far it seems LRRP52 believes he can't because they are already under the federal firearms act (?). I tend to believe LRRP52.
If President Trump can't ban them but tries, the next question becomes what we can do about it and on line petitions are one way but are pretty much ignored. So, suggest better ways.
And finally -- no one on any of these threads on the subject has named politicians who believe we should be able to own and use suppressors without government interference so we can support them. You haven't either.
What I am sick of seeing here is guys screaming about how the government can't, when the fact is the government can and does, and then provide no rational course of action we can take to protect what we believe are our 2A rights.
LR1955 Wrote:So far no one has made a case that owning suppressors is a right under the 2A. Maybe that ought to be a start point...
The 2A addresses the right to keep and bear arms. As defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934, silencers are firearms. Is that a good enough case?
LR1955 Wrote:Then there is the question if President Trump can ban them at all. So far it seems LRRP52 believes he can't because they are already under the federal firearms act (?).
I don't share LRRPF52's confidence. Trump shouldn't have been able to ban bump stocks, either, since they are not machine guns as defined by the NFA.
stanc Wrote:The 2A addresses the right to keep and bear arms. As defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934, silencers are firearms. Is that a good enough case?
I don't share LRRPF52's confidence. Trump shouldn't have been able to ban bump stocks, either, since they are not machine guns as defined by the NFA.
Stan:
Sure -- no problem.
You guys can get back to arguing with each other over who said what and when, now.
Bottom line to all of this in simple terms is..... Just like why we get CCW permits and do self defense classes. If you can't defend it, you don't own it. I tell my kids this all the time. Bully comes up to you and says he's gonna punch you in the face if you don't hand over your lunch money.... if you can defend it, you don't own it. The constitution, bill of rights..... just pieces of paper. 2A, mere words. What to we tell liberals that espouse "just use non threatening words to bad guys...... same thing, just words that mean nothing if you can't back them up.
The only reason we can still "defend" the 2A, is cause we can still throw more money at it than the other guys, via lobbyist, jobs, economic sales.......
There's no such thing as "right's" in the world. It's merely what you can, and can not get away with. Just look at the news and the laws and rights broken and gotten away with on a daily basis in this country. What's right, what's wrong only exists in what you can convince the majority to believe.
Now with all of that said, yes Red Dawn I do agree with you. The flip side to making a court case about the right to own anything is if you lose. Then the precedent is set to work against you now and you ended up handing a victory to the gun grabbers that wasn't on the fore front of their radar.
A nice walk in the woods helps me relax and relieves tension....
The fact I'm dragging a shovel and a body should be irrelevant...
Stanc, I do share your pessimistic view on the eventual outcome of all this. Trump can ban what ever he wants. Thinking politically and historically. Trump was a New York Democrat in his past and has publicly stated in the past he is not a fan of guns. Hell I would bet Pelosi would publicly kiss him if he brokered that deal behind closed door's. Think about it..... he gains a majority control in the House, (cause we all know they will march in lock step to orders) enough Republicans could be swayed, paid off, whatever to change support. Heck even Lindsay Graham is working on gun restriction bills this very moment. Now he has Senate support too, plus a public majority via all the liberal Democratic side.
Now yes this is a over simplification, but it is a very, very real possibility. Just imagine the deep state, Pelosi, take you pick to put a name on it with that kind of deal along with making the Mueller, collusion, bla bla bla all go away and instead offer full behind the scenes support. Might be very tempting.......
A nice walk in the woods helps me relax and relieves tension....
The fact I'm dragging a shovel and a body should be irrelevant...
First -- is there any validity to this thread against silencers other than President Trump saying in an interview that he would 'consider' it? So far I haven't seen any alerts about it from legitimate pro gun organizations.
Second -- which Senators or Congressmen would fight such a move?
1. I think this comment was a sop thrown to take the issue off the front page, following the Va Beach shooting, after which our guv-nuh Northam (the baby-murdering doctor) has called for a special legislative session to push gun control that would not have prevented it. It was Northam's way of shifting focus away from his own KKK-past (in photos). The shooter used 1 suppressor but had 2, 45 cal handguns.
2. Don't really hear of any in Congress talking on this one way or the other.
3. I'm watching this issue on our state level, contacting legislators, and proposing that they do something instead about all of the after-birth abortion/murders that are being sanctioned by this governor and done in our state.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"
Nothing passed or heavily pushed as of yet that I’m aware of, if a politicians lips are moving, be concerned. A lot of it is being discussed as red flag laws and extreme risk protection laws.
[URL="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thetrace.org/2019/03/red-flag-law-senate-hearing-republicans/amp/"] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thetrac...icans/amp/[/URL]
No there is not anything directly pending for a motion that I’m aware of, but if you poke around a picture begins to emerge that there are wheels in motion.
So if Trump has mentioned it in anyway shape or form, it’s on the radar and anything is possible. My above ramblings were pure late night tin foil hattery, but nowadays it seems we are treading in uncharted waters.
A nice walk in the woods helps me relax and relieves tension....
The fact I'm dragging a shovel and a body should be irrelevant...
07-01-2019, 03:38 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2019, 04:18 PM by stanc.)
grayfox Wrote:1. I think this comment was a sop thrown to take the issue off the front page, following the Va Beach shooting...
That's possible, but Trump's statements that he doesn't like silencers and is "going to seriously look at" banning them -- remarks very similar to what he said about bump stocks -- give cause for concern.
grayfox Wrote:...after which our guv-nuh Northam (the baby-murdering doctor) has called for a special legislative session to push gun control that would not have prevented it. It was Northam's way of shifting focus away from his own KKK-past (in photos). The shooter used 1 suppressor but had 2, 45 cal handguns.
2. Don't really hear of any in Congress talking on this one way or the other.
3. I'm watching this issue on our state level, contacting legislators, and proposing that they do something instead about all of the after-birth abortion/murders that are being sanctioned by this governor and done in our state.
I'm pretty sure that abortion is not a 2A issue, or even an allowed topic. Are you trying to get the thread locked?
