Posted on 06/03/2019 5:25:40 AM PDT by JamesP81
“Q The suspect in the Virginia Beach shooting used a silencer on his weapon. Do you believe that silencers should be restricted?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t like them at all.”
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehouse.gov ...
Psst, suppressors are already restricted. You may want to go look at who was responsible for that...
You’re glad he’s president instead of hillary!!!!????
Do you really ####ing mean it!!!!!!!!!??????
Cause, ya know, I couldn’t sleep if I thought you didn’t like him.
GTF out of here with your 2 cent complaint.
2) His comment reflects gross, inexcusable ignorance (at best). Such ignorance is unworthy of a President.
Seriously, Mr. President: Either get yourself some education on firearms and related topics, or shut your damn mouth about them.
George HW Bush stabbed gun owners in the back. His second term was remarkably productive ...
GTF Out of here with your hatred of the Constitution.
Someone asked, and he gave his opinion: "I don't like them at all." How is that so terribly anti-2A?
What’s the purpose of suppressors? I thought those were only used by hit men on TV. I’m pro 2A and noise control isn’t part of it.
To be fair, I’m doubtful the founding fathers necessarily envisioned silencers when they created the second amendment.
And I don’t think Trump ever indicated he WANTED to ban silencers or for that matter firearms. He said he didn’t like silencers, yes, but that’s not the same thing as voicing a desire to ban them. My mom’s wary around guns, for example, yet she has enough respect for the second amendment to allow their existence in spite of said wariness. Until Trump explicitly voices a desire to ban guns outright, he’s as pro-second amendment as one can get.
And besides, why would civilians even need a silencer for guns, anyways? Last I checked, silencers would be needed in order to avoid detection if you shoot a gun, such as during black ops or assassinations, and I really don’t see the need for a silencer when, say, trying to ward off burglars inside your house (if anything, keeping it unsilenced would ward the burglars off just from shooting.). Now, if they’re trying to ward off someone actively trying to kill you, that might be a good reason to have a silencer.
Two categories of people don't like suppressors:
1) Ignorami
2) Tyrants.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you fail to comprehend?
It also reflects a cultural issue - there’s a lot of people the President’s age that were brought up to believe that “only bad people use suppressors,” long confirmed and reinforced by Hollywood movies and before that in pulp fiction and the press.
In politics, it’s best to avoid unforced errors.
Suppressors are highly regulated.
No one in that conversation was trying to broker any sort of deal for future legislation. It was a casual off-the-cuff talk.
If Trump says suppressors are great and everyone should have one, then the media calls him a Nut. Who needs more of that?
Q: Supressors?
A: Don’t like ‘em.
Does no damage. Gives them nothing. Makes the conversation boring and pointless.
Well done, Mr. President.
Many ranges are being closed because of people spuriously complaining about the noise of firearms. Suppressors would solve that problem.
Also, there are legitimate game hunting and vermin control applications for suppressors. Hunting feral hog, shooting deer (if you miss, you don’t spook the animal) and more. Additionally, unsuppressed firearms, even if you wear hearing protection *will* cause hearing damage over years of even sporadic use.
Or, put another way - firearms need suppressors for the same reasons we fit sound suppressors to automobiles, motorcycles, generators, etc.
To be fair, suppressors weren’t even a concept until the 20th century, so it’s extremely unlikely the Founding Fathers even envisioned such things existing.
And either way, all he did was voice a dislike for them. He never said anything about wanting to get rid of them. And other than maybe warding off armed men who are hunting you down and more importantly want you dead, why on earth would a civilian even need a suppressor? A loud gunshot would have been sufficient to ward off burglars.
I guess the potus has not spent hours on end shooting high caliber weapons with ear plugs or muffs on.
This thread is shaping up to be a fifteen-rounder. I’m gettin’ some beer and finding some shade outside (it’s 100 degrees in Tampa). Sonny Liston redux.
Who cares what you think they might have envisioned. They deliberately made 2A completely open-ended. It covers any "arms". Don't like it? Get an amendment passed, or learn to live with it.
why would civilians even need a silencer for guns,
I don't see "need" anywhere in the Second Amendment. Do you? Please point it out. The Second Amendment is all about ensuring that We the People are as well armed as our servants in uniform. It's not about killing animals, or killing burglars. It's about killing tyrants.
ISHA has many noise and hearing conservation regulations. Quiet is mandated.
Suppressors sounds like a euphemism to disguise their purpose.
But I am ignorant on this and curious as to who uses silencers, particularly on handguns, for good purposes?
Okay, those are actually pretty good reasons to keep them then. I will say this much, though: he still didn’t voice any desire to ban suppressors. Stating a personal dislike of them =/= wanting to ban them outright.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.